1921-03-22

COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (Lambton East) presented the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
Detailed Statement of Remissions of Customs Duties and the refund thereof for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1920.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Annual Report of the Secretary of State of Canada for the year 1919-20.-Sir Henry Drayton.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a notification of a vacancy having occurred in the Electoral District of Medicine Hat, by the decease of the Right Honourable Arthur Lewis Sifton, sitting member therefor. I accordingly issued my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer to make out a new writ of election for the said Electoral District.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT (PUBLIC HARBOURS)

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Halifax) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 40, to amend the Canada Shipping Act (Public Harbours). He said: The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Governor in Council to increase existing penalites for the pollution of harbour waters by the discharge of waste oil from oil-burning steamers.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Wednesday, the sixth of April, and on all subsequent Wednesdays to the end of the Session, the House shall meet at Three o'clock, p.m., and that the sittings on such days shall, in every respect, be under the same rules provided for other days, and that Government Notices of Motions and Government Orders shall have precedence over all business except Questions by Members and Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and . Queen's) :: There is already on the Order
Paper a motion standing in my name, dealing with, the question of the hours of meeting and closing our business on Wednesdays. I regret that the Prime Minister, in this motion, is abandoning at once the Wednesday evening recess. There are strong reasons which can be urged in favour of continuing that recess. I am confident it makes, not only for the comfort and convenience of members, but for the efficient administration of the business of the House. If members know that they will have one evening a week on yrhich they are free to make engagements, they will adapt themselves to that; but if they have no evening free in which they can make engagements, they will take an evening off whenever it suits them, and there will be a lack of attendance. As, however, the whole question will come up again on the motion that stands in my name. I do not know that any good purpose can be served by continuing the discussion at this stage.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly and Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I wish
to draw the attention of the Government to an item which appeared on Saturday in the Montreal papers regarding the commercial treaty with France. The item states that the commercial treaty with France, signed on behalf of Canada by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) in the month of January last, will become effective on the 27th of this month. I might say that I have on the Order Paper a motion for the production of that treaty. . When the motion came up on March 4, the Prime Minister asked that the motion stand, and on March 7, the same answer was given. Is it true that the treaty .was signed on behalf of Canada in the month of January, and that it will become effective on the 27th instant? Why is the Government keeping the people at large, the manufacturers who wish to do business with France, and members of Parliament, unaware of the contents of that treaty until it becomes effective?


The Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the last question first. The Government has not been keeping the contents of the proposed agreement secret to the detriment of manufacturers.

or any other business men of this country; rather the opposite was the point held in view. It is true that an agreement was come to, and that it was signed by myself when I was on the other side in the month of January, and it was signed by the then Minister of Commerce, Mr. Isaac. But it is also true that a little after that a change of Gevernment occurred in France, and consequently the signature by the preceding Minister of Commerce was not effective. The measure had itself to be examined and agreed to by the succeeding ministry, so that there was no treaty that was effective, either in esse or in the future, until it became established that the succeeding Government was of the same mind as the preceding and would carry out the effect of the agreement. That was not ascertained until last week. Now, let me say a word as to why the treaty could not just at this moment be laid before the House. I signed for Canada the proposed agreement. Both copies of it were sent to the French Government through the British Embassy; and when the French Government were in a position to sign-and that would not be until the succeeding Government had approved the agreement-the two copies of the agreement were to be signed in Paris and one copy sent to the Canadian Government. So that really we have not the authoritative treaty or agreement until we receive that signed copy which belongs to us and which is now on the way from France.
Hence, if I had give out the contents of the agreement as made between Mr. Isaac and myself, I might have been misleading the whole people of Canada, because it might never have gone into force. At the present time I have what I believe to be pretty close to an exact transcript of the agreement as it now stands after having been signed by the French minister, and I am going to take the responsibility of laying that before the House at an early date-with the remark that there may be some slight deviations, not very important, in respect to the articles of the agreement as a result of its examination by the minister in France who succeeded Mr. Isaac.


Joseph Archambault: Is it true that the treaty will become effective on the 27th of this month, that is, at the end of this week?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: That is the contents of the telegram that I have received from Mr. Roy.


William Stevens Fielding: Can it become effective in Canada until it has been approved by this House?


George Green Foster: Yes.


Joseph Archambault: A commercial treaty?


George Green Foster: Yes.


Mr. CURRIE:: When did this House
authorize the making of the treaty with France? Are members of this House not to be consulted at all in these matters? I have a distinct recollection of one government in Canada being defeated on that very question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


John Allister Currie: I should like an answer.


Mr. BELAND:: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if there is any special reason why communication with the French Government should be made through the British Embassy, instead of through the Canadian High Commissioner in Paris?


George Green Foster: It has always been the custom that these trade agreements that are made are made through the privity and through the medium of an official of the British Government. I sent the copies which I myself signed through the British Foreign Office. They reached the French Government through that medium, and I expect they will be returned through the same medium.


Mr. BUREAU:: That was prior to our becoming a nation.


George Green Foster: Oh, no. It is said that Canada became a nation a long time ago, during Sir Wilfrid Laurier's time.



BOOK ON PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS ARCHITECTURE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: In view of the fact that this magnificent building is full of historic carvings and that almost the whole period of Canada's history is represented in it in some form or other, is it the intention of the Government to have the architect write a book descriptive of the building before his duties are discharged?


Arthur Meighen: I am not aware Mr. Speaker that any pressure has been brought to bear on the architect to write a book. I am always very slow to write books myself,

but I can assure my hon. friend that this matter will be brought to the architect's attention.



CIVIL SERVICE BONUS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve) :: May I ask my right hon. friend if anything has yet been decided regarding the bonus to be paid to the Civil Service this year?


Arthur Meighen: I expect to be able to make a statement on that matter tomorrow.



INCOME TAX FORMS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi) :: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance when the new forms for income tax returns will be issued.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance):: My understanding, and I think the fact, is that the forms are already issued.


William Frederic Kay: I tried to get some last week at my post office, but could not do so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is that?


William Frederic Kay: In the county of Missisquoi.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And the post office?


William Frederic Kay: Philipsburg.



LAKE OF THE WOODS CONTROL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Jacques Bureau: May I ask the Prime
Minister whether he or any member of the Government has received any communication from the International Joint Waterways Commission with reference to control of the waters of the Lake of the Woods either since or prior to November last?


Arthur Meighen: I am not aware of
any being received from the International Joint Waterways Commission since November last.


Jacques Bureau: Or from any branch,
American or Canadian?


Arthur Meighen: I would not say that
no communication has been received, but I cannot bring to mind at the moment any received since that date. Perhaps the hon.
[Mr. Meigrhen 1
gentleman would put his question on the Order Paper.


Jacques Bureau: I just want a yes or no answer.


Arthur Meighen: I will make a note
of my hon. friend's question, and have it answered tomorrow.



THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Joseph Archambault: As a member of the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts I should like to ask the Minister of Finance when he expects to lay on the table of the House the fourth volume of the Auditor-General's Report.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I expect it will be tabled at the end of the month.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysborough) :: I should like to ask the
Secretary of State-I presume we have a Secretary of State, although I do not know who he is-when returns may be expected to some thirty motions that were passed at the last session of this House for the production of papers, and which orders of the House have not yet been complied with.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I shall have very great pleasure in looking into the matter. Perhaps my hon. friend could facilitate matters by letting me have a list of these motions.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-AMQUI STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Right Hon. Sir George Foster for Committee of Supply:
Mr. F. J. PELLETIER (Matane) :: Mr. Speaker, if I am in order I should like to ask the Government one or two questions before the House goes into Committee of Supply. My attention has been called to certain conditions existing on the Intercolonial Railway at Amqui station. May I ask my right hon. friend the Prime Minister whether he received on or about the 10th day of March a communication from Mr. J. E. Beaulieu, Registrar of Amqui, asking why certain changes pertaining to the night and day agents at Amqui station had been made. I understand from a copy of this communication that the day agent

at Amqui station goes on at eight o'clock in the morning and leaves at five in the afternoon, and that the night agent goes on at eight o'clock in the evening and leaves at four in the morning. This leaves the station without an agent between the hours of 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. and between 4 a.m. and 8 a.m. Mr. Beaulieu states that during the time neither agent is on duty trains Nos. 32, 33 and 34 pass through Amqui, and the people are not in a position to get their freight or express on account of there being no agent there at that time. Any merchandise on No. 32, for instance, is carried on through to Campbellton, and does not return until the following day on another train, and vice versa. If the people of Amqui wish to express goods in the opposite direction they have to send their goods out to Mont Joli, to be returned later. I should like to ask my right hon. friend whether he has referred this matter to the proper department, that is, if he has received the communication. A copy of it was sent to me and I wrote to the General Superintendent enclosing him a copy, 'but I have not yet received an answer from him. Whether it is because officials of the road are instructed not to answer communications or not I do not know. It seems rather strange now that when we ask on the floor of the House for certain information we are not able to secure it. May 1 ask my hon. friend whether he has also received a copy of the resolution adopted by the Council at Amqui, complaining of the same thing, and if so, whether he has given the matter his attention? We trust that this matter will be taken into consideration.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may point out to
the hon. member that if he has any further remarks to make, or suggestions to offer, he had better avail himself of the opportunity now, because he is limited to one speech on this motion. Similarly, the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), in his reply, will be limited to one speech.


François Jean Pelletier: Very well, Mr. Speaker. The resolution that was adopted by the Council at Amqui gave a wealth of details, showing that the village has a population of nearly 4,000, and that there are three other parishes east of Amqui itself. All the goods that have been shipped on the trains I have mentioned are loaded at Amqui for shipment. Now, these people certainly want to have the present condition of affairs remedied, and I sincerely trust that my right hon. friend will attend to this matter in the near future.
He may have transmitted it to some other department, but, as I have stated, I have not been able to obtain any answer. I should be glad to see an agent appointed who would be at the station at all times. It seems unreasonable that these trains should pass by that station, which is an important one, without an agent being there. In the communication of which I spoke, of the 28th February, I mentioned the fact that the officials of the Canadian National Railways at Amqui had allowed certain people to pile lumber on the south side of the station in the yard, in the immediate vicinity of which there are quite a number of private residences; and I pointed out that the owners of these houses were obliged to pay the same rate of insurance as is paid by the lumber yards. I submitted this question to the superintendent of the district, but he informed me that he could do nothing. This lumber could just as easily be piled on the northwest side, where there are no buildings nearby; and there are sidings on that side of the yard as well as on the other. I should like to have a satisfactory answer from the Prime Minister, who I trust will give his best consideration to this matter.


Arthur Meighen: I should be only too glad to reply to the hon. member, especially as he very seldom addresses the House. I cannot do so, however, if what I say now is to be regarded as exhausting my only opportunity for speaking on this motion. The hon. member asks about a communication which he is informed was sent to me, and I rather gathered that he added later on that he had written me himself. Is that correct?


François Jean Pelletier: No.


Arthur Meighen: I must have misunderstood my hon. friend. Now, it may be that my office received the letter to which he refers. If it was received, it would be dealt with by my secretary without direct reference to me and would be submitted to the Railway Department for reference to the Canadian National Board. If the hon. member wrote me personally himself the letter would come to me direct, and I am sure I would have answered it by this time. I cannot recall having received that communication.


François Jean Pelletier: There were two
mailed.


Arthur Meighen: I have no doubt they were received in my office, but they would



not come to me personally unless they were so directed. However, I shall look into the matter and see that proper steps are taken in respect of both.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition) :: ernment giving to Parliament the fullest information with respect to any questions which hon. members care to address to the ministry in regard to the national railroads.
Let me just say this further word: If public opinion is to be formed in an intelligent manner on this important question it can only be so formed by having before the country the fullest available information on which to base opinion, and that information is possible only by the Government supplying it through the medium of Parliament. I think the amendment is so reasonable on its face that it requires no argument for its support.
I would draw the attention of the House to this one feature in conclusion-while the amendment does assert the right of Parliament to full information, as one of the fundamental rights of a body such as this-which is representative of the people at large and with respect to a great property which is owned by the people themselves-it says nothing as to the form in which that information is to be supplied. It is customary in this House to have information given in answer to questions addressed to the ministry, or on motions for the production of papers; and sometimes the information is given through special committees. Nothing is said in this amendment as to the particular form in which the information is to be given; that is for the Government to decide; but it does assert the undoubted right of Parliament to the fullest information in respect to any property that is owned by the people of Canada, the management of which is in the hands of the Government and for which the people, as taxpayers, become liable, especially when, as in the present instance, there are gigantic deficits to meet.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I have to thank my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) for extending to me the courtesy of notice that this motion would be brought before the House to-day. He did not, however, err on the side of generosity, as the first intimation of it came to me half an hour before the debate at 2.30 this afternoon. I am glad, though, that the motion embodies a subject that is well worthy of the consideration of Parliament, and I shall take the opportunity later to invite, through a fitting channel, expressions of opinion from both sides of the House after the pros and cons are laid 
before hon. members as fully as is possible during the course of this debate.
When the railways of this country were ' assumed as a national property, the question at once confronted the Government as to what system of management would be the best, having regard to the public interest for the operation of those roads. The Government, two or three years ago, found itself in possession of some 17,000 miles of railway, with, all the appurtenances that go with a great railway system in these times, and with the tremendous staff of employees and all the subsidiary activities that circle around anything of the nature of the Canadian Northern or, as it is now, the Canadian National Railways. Until then this country had never faced such a problem. We had for many years operated a railway between the Maritime Provinces and the city of Quebec, and later the city of Montreal-the Intercolonial railway. That railway was constructed and operated not exclusively as a business enterprise. It was constructed in large degree for laudable political purposes, and in its operation through all the years under the Department of Railways and Canals undoubtedly regard was paid to the fact that it was so originally constructed, and there was general consent that it was not being conducted on the hard and fast business lines that would be essential were it treated solely as a business enterprise. But even though there was that reason for the operation of the Intercolonial railway under the Department of Railways and Canals in the manner in which I have described, it cannot be said that the results of that operation were anything like wholly satisfactory to the people of Canada, or that the experience of that operation was such as to warrant the adoption of the same methods were another system to come into our possession. Much less was the experience of that operation such as to permit the Government seriously to contemplate the operation under the direct control of the Department of Railways and Canals-in other words, under direct political control -of a system of the immense magnitude of the Canadian National railways.
I cannot conceive that any Government that had first concern for the well being of such a railway system, or of the country that was the owner of that system, would for a moment think of undertaking the operation of that system-the largest in point of mileage in the world to-day- merely as a departmental activity, as we

operate other services under the Crown. The conclusion then arrived at all hon. members know. It was decided to try the plan of corporate operation; to give this system the same chance to succeed as a business enterprise that other rival or corresponding systems had the world over; and to see what success that system could have under the best conditions that could obtain.
That decision having been arrived at and having been approved by Parliament, the question then presented itself, as to how far it was consistent with the operation of our Canadian National Railways thereunder, that questions concerning only the relations of the operating board to the patrons of the road should be subject to the daily review of Parliament-in a word, to that summons, review, and control of Parliament that undoubtedly Parliament historically has exercised, and must exercise, in relation to services directly under departments of the Government. Well, if it has not been manifest to hon. members not so closely associated with the work as those of us in the Government, it must at least be manifest to those who come closely in contact with operations, that if all matters between the board of directors and the pat-, rons of the road-all things connected with its operation-are to be subject to motion in this House and to disclosure by the production of documents and papers from day to day, the same as any activity of a department of Government, we are right back where we were with the Intercolonial; we are under political control. And we reach a position that to my mind seems to be anomalous, and wholly inconsistent with the corporate management of the road.
While there is corporate management, there remains the answerability and responsibility of the Government for the success of the system. That we cannot dispute. But there is no immediate accountability for the day to day procedure of operation. If there is to be then our officers subject to our direction must operate the road; but our officers subject to our direction are not so operating. The board of directors is independent of Government control and direction; and that being so the Government from day to day cannot be answerable for details of operation, or for what takes place in the ordinary routine of operation between the operating directorate and the patrons of the road.
Now, let us assume that the Government should demand from the directorate, and bring down to Parliament from day to
day, all correspondence that takes place between the directorate and patrons of the system having relation to, say, the price of coal purchased at one point or at another point; or in relation to the situation of a pile of lumber in a little village, or as was instanced already this afternoon, whether that pile is on the northwest or the south side of the track; or in relation to details of purchases; or in relation to details of contracts-let us assume that these are exposed in Parliament, say, and attacked by the Opposition. In that event, is the Government in a position to defend? Those matters did not take place under the direction of any officer subject to our control, they took place under officers subject to the board of directors, for whose general conduct of the system the Government must be answerable, but for the details of whose conduct from day to day those directors are answerable as the directorate of the system. Therefore, there would be no one in a position to defend, there would be no one who could possibly be in possession of information that would enable him to defend.
But even a greater absurdity than that would arise. Owing to the immensity of the system it would be wholly impossible for Parliament to do its work, if it were to attempt from day to day as part of its duties to review the operations of that system, and if the Government were called upon from day to day to account for this or that action of the board of directors in matters of daily operation of the road. Consequently, a position from both those points of view would be taken which could not be sustained-could not be sustained, on the one hand, because the time of Parliament could not be directed to it, could not be absorbed in the effort, and, on the other hand, because it would result in holding the Government responsible from day to day for that which, unless it exercised direct political control from day to day, it could not possibly assume the responsibility.
There is another consideration, too. This system is in daily competition with the greatest railway system in the world, the Canadian Pacific railway, a system with a mileage somewhat less than ours, but which, in the various activities that come under it and in the immensity of its operations, is as yet the greater; a system perhaps the best managed of any very great business enterprise in the world to-day. Now, our system is in competition with that system. In the great body of its activities, it must,

in order to have work to do, in order to get a paying business, perform services in competition with the Canadian Pacific Railway system. I want to put it to this House: how is the Canadian National Railway directorate going to make a success in that fight for business, going to make a success of its efforts to compete with the Canadian Pacific, if every day it is subject to having every action of the board of directors and of its agents and officers disclosed to the public and to its competitor while on the other hand the competitor need disclose nothing at all?
In that connection, the hon. gentleman has said: Unless you are ready, in some form or other, to bring down all the information concerning the operation of the -road-and I am good enough, he says, not to tell you the form in which it should he brought down; I do not know what difference the form makes; if it has to come down it has to come down and this is the only way to get it down-unless you do as you did with the Intercolonial, answer in the House for, and expose to Parliament, every detail of operation, then the system will be generally suspected in the public mind as being merely a great instrument or engine of political patronage. That is the only way, he says, in which you can preserve this road from the suspicion of being a politically controlled organization. Well now, is that the fact? The Canadian Pacific Railway Company would refuse to any man or to any parliament the disclosure of business that is its own; it knows that it cannot conduct the administration of that great enterprise and at the same time disclose to everybody just what it is doing from time to time. Not that what it is doing is wrong, hut every business enterprise knows that it is impossible successfully to conduct a business, impossible to get the advantages which every business must get if it is to succeed, if everybody doing business with that enterprise and the public generally is to know all its moves on all parts of the chess board from morning till night and from day to day. But because the Canadian Pacific does not have to do that, is it shrouded in mystery? Not at all. Why should it be shrouded in mystery any more than any other business? Why should the Canadian National Railway system be shrouded in mystery any more than any other road? Or why should it bq enveloped with the suspicion that because it conducts its affairs in the way any other enterprise must conduct its affairs, it is merely an engine of political patronage? Again is that

the fact? The hon. member reads from a newspaper

a newspaper 4 p'.m. which, I regret to say, though quite within its right, has always opposed the absorption by the Government of these roads, notwithstanding the fact that no thinkable alternative presented itself except the one we adopted; a newspaper which doubtless still takes that attitude. But has the hon. member brought anything forward to support the conclusion arrived at by that newspaper? What is there in the way of evidence that the Canadian National directorate are to-day merely the spokesmen, the instruments of this Government for political purposes? Everything in the way of evidence shows exactly the contrary. The manager of that system is on record time and again, the last time not later than a few weeks ago. as saying that frbm the hour that he took control of that system as manager there has not been an effort or the shadow of an effort to influence him politically one way or the other. Whatever may have beeiU the success of that system under Mr. Hanna and the board of directors that now control, one thing is certain, that nothing in the way of failure can be attributed to influence brought to bear by this Government or by this Parliament. The Government has given them every opportunity to make the road succeed under the business conditions that prevailed. There has been no political control; there has been no patronage of any sort. No one connected with the road, from the bottom to the top; no one on that directorate, would to-day say that there has been any attempt whatever to influence him or to influence the directorate in the control that we said in the first place would be theirs if they took the responsibility of managing the system. Consequently, there is nothing whatever in the contention-I care not from what source it comes, whether from Montreal, from Toronto, or from anywhere else in this Dominion; whether from low or high estates-there is nothing in the contention and nothing whatever in the suspicion, nor does the suspicion generally exist, that there has been anything in the way of political interference with the management of the Canadian National Railways.
I think it will be obvious that if the Can!"'" adian National directorate are to be compelled to answer to resolutions, which by the dozen may be put upon the Order Paper of this House every day, calling for copies of correspondence, for the disclosure of every fact and of every deed con-

(i nected with the operation of the road,
1 they will be put under a disability that their great competitor is not under at all. Should we do that they might well say: You shackle us in the management of the road; you refuse to give us that latitude and freedom of management that every successful business must have; you there-i fore will have to take the responsibility of failure-we do not. That would be the position they would logically assume. I venture to say that no board of directors, no president and general manager who would be big enough for the tremendous task of operating that system to-day, would undertake to assume such responsibility under conditions that would be brought about were this amendment to be adopted.^ I am quite aware that there is to be said from the other standpoint much that is plausible and much that is more or less difficult to answer. I know that it is a fact that the board of directors of the Canadian National railways are dealing virtually with the funds of the people of Canada. I know that Parliament, and Parliament alone, is responsible to the people for the disposition of the moneys raised by taxation; consequently I know that there must be ample facility for the exercise of the control that goes with and is inseparable from responsibility. The difficulty has been to envolve a line up to which you can go in disclosing to Parliament the affairs of the system and beyond which you cannot go if the system is to succeed. Just where that is to be it is very difficult indeed to say. We have brought down certain particulars in relation to the management of the road. Some questions have been answered where it appeared to the Government quite certain that the answering of them or the furnishing of the return to an order of the House could not prejudice the position of the company. I do not think that as yet any very clear principle has been evolved. It is true that the report of the board of directors comes down from year to year, and it is true that that shows what the board of directors of a private system discloses to its shareholders. I do not know that it is impossible to go further than that; I would not like to assert that it is wholly impossible. I know there must be such information at some time as will enable Parliament properly to judge as to the general management of the sytsem and to say whether or not the board of directors that we have put in charge have, in the main,
properly discharged the responsibility placed upon them. That information must be given; but if this resolution passes, it is certain that much that is unfortunate will happen, but very improbable that what is most desirable will actually result. This resolution means simply a return to the old system of political control; it stops nowhere short of that end. Pass this resolution, and you put the system under political control. What is to be done? It has occurred to me that if Parliament set to work, say, through a committee of this House, to study this specific question in order to evolve some rule that could be followed, looking to the discharge of the obligations of Parliament, it would likely result in something definite and concrete. That committee could bring before them those who have to do with the operation of the system, the officers of the road, the president of the road, and if they so desired, touching the subject committed to them they could bring as well officers of the competing road or of other business enterprises of this country. Having done so, they would clearly see just what it would be impossible to do, and I think likely they would be able to evolve something that it would be possible to do, and that would be amply sufficient to put Parliament in possession of all the information that Parliament would require to come to an intelligent decision on those issues that Parliament alone can decide. It is said: "This resolution states that anything of a confidential nature need not be brought down, but that everything that is not confidential must be brought down." What is there that in its nature is confidential?
For example, suppose the Canadian National railways has been engaged, as it is, in the purchase of coal; suppose it buys at one price at one point and at another price at another. Its competitor does that. Now, it takes twenty cents out of every dollar of the earnings of the road to pay for its coal, so coal is a great factor. Its competitor is able to buy just as cheaply as it may at that point or at this. At some points its competitor can get its coal cheaper than at others. If the Canadian National Railways is to Compete on anything like even terms with its competitor, it must be able to do the same.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: Is there any duty on coal used on the railways in this country?


Arthur Meighen: 53 cents a ton. In the West they are using Alberta coal.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough) :: Will the Prime Minister say that the price of coal is not public property at every point in Canada where coal is sold? Is the price not known to everybody?


Arthur Meighen: I am informed very
definitely that it is not, and I think that will be the conclusion of the committee if one is appointed. Under the old system, though, that was the case; the very fact that the disclosures had to be made to Parliament from day to day resulted in the system having to pay the very same, and that meant the very highest, price at every point all along the system. It is possible, if we pay the price, to do that with the Canadian National Railways. [DOT] Put it under political control, and that is one result that is going to occur. But that does not put it in a position to compete with the Canadian Pacific, or to conduct its enterprise with those attributes of success which are the property of every business enterprise that gets along at all. That is only an illustration; but could it be said that the price of coal or the correspondence relating ot the purchase of coal is a confidential matter? There is nothing confidential about it that does not appertain to virtually every matter connected with the operation of the road. Therefore, the reservation that is embodied in the resolution is no reservation at all; That reservation would not protect the resolution, because it would not protect the system; it would not allow to the system anything at all of the latitude it must have,' unless it is to be so shackled and bound down that a success cannot be made of it. Consequently, it seems to me impossible that the resolution, as drawn, can be accepted. I need not refer to the obvious fact that, moved in amendment to Supply and particularly moved as it was by the leader of the Opposition in terms of criticism of the course which the Government has pursued in this regard, it is a motion of want of confidence as well.
I want to say this as well in relation to it. The senior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has on the Order Paper, if I am in order in referring to it, a resolution in which he calls upon the House to establish a Select Standing Committee on Canadian National Railways and Shipping. That resolution has not yet come up for discussion. It has been suggested-and the suggestion appears to me to be one well

worthy of sympathetic consideration, that when the resolution comes up, it might be well for the House to consider whether or not the first duty with which that committee, if it is appointed, should be charged, should be the determination of this very subject that is launched in the resolution now before the House. I think I have said enough to convince hon. members on both sides, especially hon. members who have had to do with business matters, and particularly in connection with great business undertakings, with such closeness as to make them see what is going to result if the resolution passes, that a resolution in such terms cannot receive the favour of Parliament, because the carrying of it out is a reversal of the policy which "this Parliament has adopted; it is a reversion to a policy which, applicable to one very small system, failed, and which, applicable to a system of the immensity of that which we are now responsible for, must result in little less than chaos.


Mr. CRERAR:: The leader of the Government (Mr. Meighen) has referred to a resolution standing on the Order Paper in the name of the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). That resolution is considerably down on the Order Paper and, in the ordinary course of events, it might not be reached. Might I ask my right hon. friend if he will give an opportunity for the discussion of that resolution so that it may be considered?


Arthur Meighen: I have, of course, no
right to postpone the time of any member in relation to his deciding when he will move a resolution standing in his name; but the Government would be pleased if this resolution came on to-morrow.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, the speech of the
Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) is, in one sense, like a lady's letter, the pith of which is generally found in the postscript. I find that my right hon. friend, while arguing for a time in the spirit of what I suppose he thought was sweet reasonableness on the merits of this question, a moment or two before he sat down suddenly cracked the party whip and said: "This is a vote of non-confidence." If my right hon. friend had felt strong on other grounds, he would not have introduced that at the last moment. A motion of this character is only a vote of non-confidence when the Government sees fit to treat it so. It is quite possible, I understand, in our Parliamentary institutions, to present a motion of this kind which will

not be a motion of non-confidence and which should not be treated as such. There are many precedents, if time permitted one to cite them, in which motions made in amendment to Supply are accepted by the Government because they assert some sound proposition which the Government do not wish to oppose. There have been many such cases. In my own experience. as Minister of Finance I have voted for amendments moved to Supply, if my memory is not mistaken, and I think myself that when my right hon. friend insists on making this a party issue he is not acting wisely. I would personally have been very much better pleased if he had said:
" Why, this asserts one of the first principles of free parliamentary government, and I am going to accept it and stand by it." That, I think, would have been the wiser policy, rather than to have told his friends that they must vote against the amendment because it is to be deemed a vote of want of confidence. There is unfortunately a tendency in parliamentary government, perhaps everywhere in these modern times, to move perhaps towards autocracy. It is complained even in England to-day, in the Mother of Parliaments to which we look for guidance and direction, that there is a tendency for the government there to take to itself too much power and make members of parliament, even those supporting the government, feel that after all there is not very much for them to do. If that tendency exists there, certainly it exists in a more marked degree in Canada. It has been a just cause of complaint that hon. gentlemen opposite have again and again resorted to government which ignores parliament. I do not want to go back to the days of the war. They had to do many things then by Order in Council which I approved of, and I am not censuring them for that. But in these days the tendency of this Government from day to day is to undertake to do things and be absolutely indifferent as to what Parliament thinks about it. Why, the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) comes here today and tells us that he has made a treaty with France. He has not told us up to this very moment the exact terms of the treaty, he has not even told us who signed it, except that he signed it himself. Then, a little later, he said that it was customary to do these things through the British Embassy, but we do noe even know whether the British Ambassador signed it. My right hon. friend coolly tells us that he will bring
down a document which he thinks will be something like the treaty, and lay it on the Table, and in the meantime he is going to put the treaty into operation at once. That is the way hon. gentlemen opposite treat Parliament. That has not been the custom in the past, and every hon. gentleman in this House, no matter on what side he sits, should resent such a tendency, and show his disapproval of the growing autocracy of the Government.
We had another case in connection with the luxury taxes. This House spent many days, and properly so, in assisting my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to prepare a system of luxury taxes;-I am not criticising his bringing down those taxes, but I say we spent a great deal of time considering them. He received the help of Parliament; there was no adverse criticism; on all sides he was helped. Then one day in the middle of the Christmas season he coolly steps in, and by Order in Council abolishes the tax. We are always told about Christmas time that we ought to buy early. The shopmen say they hope we will buy early, that we should have regard for the hard-working clerks, and that it is to our own advantage to have a large field to select from. All wise men, I suppose-and that would include members of parliament and their families-observe that principle and buy early. Last Christmas, after they had made their purchases, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance stepped in at the eleventh hour and abolished the tax; so the late comers did not have to pay the tax at all. It is undoubtedly the right of the Governor in Council to reduce taxation, while they have not the power to increase it, but I question the wisdom of a sweeping change of that kind made by Order in Council, even in the direction of reducing taxation.
These are illustrations, I say, of the tendency of this Government to play the part of the autocrat and to ignore Parliament, and never have they ignored Parliament in a way that was more open to criticism than in the case that was presented to-day when with respect to the great railway service of this country, involving an admitted loss last year of $70,000,000, we were told we have no right to ask for information, for that is really what it means. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister said that if we had all these details, Parliament never could attend to them, the time of Parliament would not permit. That would have some force if the right hon. gentleman were right in his assumption that all

these details were going to be brought before Parliament. We have the right to-day to bring all the details of the Department of Public Works, for examples, before Parliament, but nobody does it. There is here and there a case in which information is asked for and brought down but we do not burden Parliament with all the details of the Department of Public Works. It is the same with the Department of the Interior, a large department that spends great sums of money; we have the right to ask for all the details in connection with that department, but we do not do it; we ask only for certain details on matters of prominence, matters which have been questioned by somebody, or matters of particular concern to some section of the country; and we get the information. If we were to carry out with respect to all the departments what the right hon. gentleman implies we are trying to do with regard to the railways, we could not carry on business at all. My right hon. friend raises this ghost of massed details which we could not handle when he knows perfectly well that if we had the right to get all these railway documents we would not demand the full details at all. What is the difference, as a matter of principle, between the details of the Department of Public Works or the Department of the Interior and the details of the railways? I have not seen any explanation of that. If we have the right to ask the Government to lay on the Table a return in regard to an expenditure in the Department of Public Works, or the Department of Militia and Defence, or the Department of the Interior, by what principle can it he wrong if we ask for similar information regarding the railways of Canada? The only difference is this: In the one case they are spending a good deal of money, but in the case of the railways they are spending such tremendous sums that they are getting beyond the comprehension of the people of Canada, and we are practically told by the right hon. gentleman that with regard to this immense railway business we have only one privilege and that is to step up to the captain's office and settle when the Minister of Railways tells us he is $70,000,000 behind. That is the position to which he would reduce Parliament. He will not permit us to get any information, but we can have the glorious privilege of paying at the end of the term. My right hon. friend takes exception to our reserva-

tion. The reservation is made in conformity with the general principle we desire to assert. It should be a simply elementary principle in this House that Parliament has the right to demand and receive the public documents in relation to every dollar of public money expended, no matter how expended. My right hon. friend says that that would be making politics of the railways. I do not see what ground there is for that. I do not want to discuss the principle of public ownership; there are some things we ought to discuss to-day,-and some things we had better lay aside for a later date; there are some things we ought to discuss and some we ought not. We are not called upon today to discuss the general principle of public ownership. We are not called upon to-day to discuss the wisdom of appointing a committee to deal with the railways; that is on the Order Paper and we will reach it in due course. We are only called upon to consider this one question: Is it the right of the representatives of the Canadian people in Parliament assembled to receive an accounting of every dollar of public money that is spent from the treasury? That is the principle; that is all the principle. But "Oh", they say, "this is going to make politics of the railways." Sir, there are different kinds of politics. Politics is not necessarily a mean business; politics is the business of the people, and, using the word in its proper sense, I want to see politics jn connection with every administration of the public affairs of Canada. It is not going to frighten us to say that this will make politics out of the railways. Wherever you have a dollar of public money expended, in connection with that you will have politics, using the word in its proper sense; and any attempt that is made to withdraw that expenditure from what you call politics means to withdraw it from the consideration of Parliament and to deny yourselves the criticism of the public expenditure, which is the first and most essential right of the Parliament of Canada. 1 shall not be afraid of politics of that kind, and if, as my hon. friend apprehends, we shall have it, then I say the more of that sort of politics we have the better it will be for the country. You cannot, Mr. Speaker, take these roads out of politics,- using the word, of course, in its better sense. Politics, I say, when it means the safeguarding of the rights of the people and the proper care of their business, is

desirable, and wherever you have the expenditure of the people's money, you should of necessity have politics in that better sense, which means the right to inquire into matters and to be given information as to how public moneys are expended.
I do not desire to discuss the principle of public ownership to-day. It is not in issue at all. But I am going to make this statement concerning that question, that if public ownership can be maintained only by a policy of secrecy; if it can be carried on only by suppressing from Parliament the information to which the people, through their representatives, are unquestionably entitled; if it can exist only by the practice of dark-lantern methods, then I say unhesitatingly that that is enough to condemn it. Why, says the right hon. gentleman, you cannot make these things public. Nonsense! In nineteen cases out of twenty, what my right hon. friend describes as a mystery is nothing but a dream. He declares that dreadful things would happen with regard to coal if disclosures were made. Well, the Intercolonial bought coal for a great many years, and for a time I had something to do with that matter when acting minister of the department. I know the tendency of the coal people to get good prices, and in that respect, let me say, they do not differ from people in other lines of business. But that is a question which you can always meet. And when there was a combination of the coal companies it was always in the power of the Government to overcome that situation and get coal at a fair price. What prices do we pay to-day? Why, Mr. Speaker, who thinks that we are going to get coal cheaper by hiding in the dark and pretending that we are going to pay less for it than is demanded? And there is no mystery about the rates. The rates, which concern the public, are fixed by the Railway Commission; and the purchase of coal, as well as of various other supplies, presents no more difficulty to the Railway Department than the purchase of supplies does to my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works. There is not a single argument advanced to support the supression of information on this subject which would not apply quite as well to the suppression of information regarding the Department of the Interior or the Department of Militia and Defence, or of any other department of Government. The principle should be recognized in this instance, as well as in every other, that the people have a right to the fullest possible information on matters so vitally affecting their interests, and if my right hon. friend pretends that you cannot carry on business in that way; if he cannot conduct affairs without recourse to this secrecy; if he is going to build up a system of public ownership based on the suppression of facts and the refusal to inform the people of matters in which they are greatly concerned;-if public ownership is to be carried on in this way, then I say that every man interested in the question should [DOT] stand up to-day and demand that the whole system be brought into the light of day and that things be properly done. Let us confine ourselves to the point under consideration. We are not considering the principle of public owernership or the appointing of a committee, or the probao-ility of any vote of want of confidence; let us ignore all these herrings drawn across the trail and recognize the one fact that in this motion we are dealing with the right of the Parliament of Canada to be fully informed regarding the expenditure of the people's money. That is the question upon which this House is asked to vote.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If
we were considering this question in the light of an ordinary department of Government, then frankly, at once, I should have no hesitation whatever in supporting the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition. But it does seem to me that this question is not at the present time in the category of an ordinary department of Government. It is a time-honoured principle, universally recognized in British Parliaments, that in the matter of departmental expenditures the people have the right to the fullest and most complete information regarding the details of expenditures. But when that principle was first adopted, or put into practice, it was under conditions where the whole expenditure was outgoing and there was no corresponding income. Now we are faced with a different situation. I quite agree with my hon. friends that this is not a proper time to discuss the principle of public ownership. In view of the statement presented by the Minister of Railways the other day, what this House has under consideration now is the question, how we can best handle a difficult, perplexing and very discouraging situation. Now, there is a great deal of force, I think, in the argument advanced by my right hon. friend who leads the Government (Mr. Meighen). If we take the stand that every detail of expenditure in connection with our na-

tional railways shall be placed before the HcJuse at the wish of any hon. member, in what position do we place the management of our national system of railways in competition with, for instance, the Canadian Pacific Railway? It is an elementary principle of business that a good business man, one who conducts his affairs successfully, never discloses the full and intimate details of his business to his competitors; and it does seem to me that that is the position in which we should be placing ourselves if we adopted the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition. At all events, the Government, as I interpret the amendment, would be committed to bring down any information that was asked for, saving such information as might be of a purely confidential character. Now, information of a purely confidential character in connection with the administration of our railways would probably be confined to a very narrow field. At the same time, however, I recognize that the people have to foot the bills in connection with the deficits on these roads, and that does place upon Parliament, in connection with the administration of the national railways, a responsibility which we cannot evade. The whole question is one filled with difficulty at the present time. In my judgment it is one that should be approached in a spirit free from any taint of partisanship, and for that reason I am quite in accord with the suggestion, as I understood it, that came from the Prime Minister that a special committee selected from the House, should take into its consideration the whole scheme of operations of the railways, and all matters that might be submitted to the House in the interests of efficiency and success in the management of the roads. We have on the Order Paper, as my hon. friend has pointed out, a resolution to be moved by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). Now, it does seem to me that the spirit of that resolution is the best approach to the consideration of the question at the present time. If we are going to discuss in a partisan way across the floor of the House the success or failure in the management of these railways, attributing blame here, finding fault there, defending in one place and explaining in another, how much progress shall we make towards a satisfactory and sensible solution of the question? I, for one, Mr. Speaker, am profoundly anxious to see the consideration of this difficult problem removed, if possible, to the atmosphere of the committee room. I have observed in my experience in this House that when 
hon. members consider questions in committee, we can get a clearer and fairer consideration, a more intimate discussion, and a more unprejudiced exploration into the facts of a case, than we can possibly obtain in the House, where it is natural for us to divide according, shall I say, to our party views upon any matter. And this being a perplexing question, a question fraught with great difficulty and involving immense consequences to the country, I for one should like to see us approach the consideration of it at the present time without any partisanship.
Now I am quite free to say that I am in hearty accord with my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) when he states that this should not be regarded as a motion of want of confidence in the Government. Let me say at once that if I considered it purely a motion of want of confidence, I could not vote confidence in the Government. But I do not consider it as such. I am endeavouring to approach this question from the point of view of what will afford, or offer, the most satisfactory solution of it. In what way can we approach the question and discuss and consider it, free from partizanship, that will afford the greatest possibility of finding a satisfactory solution for the difficulties we are in in connection with it? For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I shall feel bound to vote against the amendment of the leader of the Opposition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. gentleman has intimated to the House that he is favourable to the resolution standing in the name of my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) which is that these matters might be referred to a select committee. Is it my hon. friend's understanding in that connection that such a committee shall have the right to ask any question with respect to these railways that may be thought in the public interest and have it answered?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If I am in order in
answering the question, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I certainly think so. In that connection I may add that such a committee could bring the president or the management of the road before them, and secure intimate and direct information in a way that cannot be secured when a motion is made asking that an ordinary return be brought down to the House. In that way you can explore the whole situation, you can get full information, you can have the opportunity of estimating the efficiency and the ability of the management of these

roads iri a way that is not at all possible by moving for the production of correspondence regarding the purchase of coal, the selection of a station site, the purchase of lumber, or anything else. It certainly does seem to me that this is the sensible inanner in which to approach this proposition.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac): I would advise the Prime Minister to peruse the report in regard to the railway situation presented the other day by the Minister of Railways. The Prime Minister this afternoon talked of success as though the government railway undertakings were a success. As a matter of fact, the people are called upon to pay the sum of $70,000,000 for a failure not for a success. The right hon. gentleman also advanced the argument against the amendment that information with respect to the national railways could not be brought before Parliament in the regular way. Now, I understand that the Intercolonial and the Transcontinental railways are subject to audit by the Auditor General's department. I would ask the Minister of Railways if that is not correct?


Hon. Mr. REID:: They are subject to
audit by the Auditor General's department, but I may say for the information of the House that the intercolonial and the Transcontinental railways are being managed by the Board of the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. CAHILL:: That is my understanding. So it is a fact that all expenditures on the Government railways, outside of the Canadian Northern, are subject to audit by the Auditor General's department. I would like to draw the attention of the leader of the Agrarian party to this fact. I learn by the report presented by the minister on March 17 that operating deficits on the Canadian Government railways increased thirty-eight per cent, and operating deficits on the Canadian Northern increased 151 per cent. Now the Government railways still subject to the audit of the Auditor General's department consist of about one-third of the total mileage of what my hon. friend wishes to call the Canadian National railways. That one-third of the total system makes a better showing because its accounts are submitted to the Auditor General's department. My hon. friend, I think, does not get the point.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Oh, yes, I get it.


Frank S. Cahill: One-third of the system at the present time, that is the Intercolonial
and the National Transcontinental Railways, are subject to the audit of the Auditor General's Department, and the deficit on that one-third increased, according to the minister's statement, by 38 per cent, while the deficit on the remainder of the government system, under the dark-lantern method as conducted in Toronto, increased by 151 per cent. That would naturally indicate that there must be some information that should be brought to the attention of Parliament. If one-third of the system, operated under the old method, shows better results than the railways operated under the new method, it would be natural for members to inquire into the cause. For that reason we should have questions in reference to the government railways answered in Parliament. The Prime Minister in discussing the old method of management on the Intercolonial deplored the conditions under that method.
I have the report of the Department of Railways for the year ending March 31st, 1920, and it shows-


John Dowsley Reid: What page are you quoting from?


Frank S. Cahill: Page 103. My hon. friend will find by a reference to that part of the report that the operating deficits in the year 1912 amounted to, in round figures, $40,000; in 1913, to $47,000; in 1914, to $160,000; in 1915, to $330,000; in 1916, to $450,000. Then the new method of management was introduced and in the following year the operating deficit was $1,200,000. The following year it was $6,000,000; in 1919, $5,800,000; and in 1920, $6,800,000. So I do not see that the old method of operation was so very bad, so far as results go, compared with the present method; the expenditures now are three, four and five times greater than they were under the old method. It is just possible that a part of this deficit is due to bad management without control. It is just possible that if the management were responsible to Parliament a better system would be followed, and that they would be more careful in their expenditures.
As to secrets in connection with the operation of the Canadian National Railways I do not believe there is one thing that goes on in connection with that operation from one end of Canada to the other that the Canadian Pacific are not familiar with twenty-four hours after it goes into effect. Let us consider the operation of trains on the Grand Trunk Pacific between Winnipeg and Saskatoon. They have a

train leaving Winnipeg at six o'clock in the evening, and another one leaving at nine o'clock, three hours later, and both trains arrive at Saskatoon within an hour of each other. How are the management fooling the Canadian Pacific in that regard? Why, the Canadian Pacific know what bad business it is to have two first-class trains arriving at Saskatoon one almost on top of the other. The management of the Government Railways are not fooling any person by that class of methods. Neither do they fool any person in the matter of the purchase of their ties. The Canadian Pacific go into the market to buy their ties, so do the Canadian Northern and the same with the rest of the national railways. There is nothing to be gained, but very much to be lost by this method of secrecy. Yesterday I thought when the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) came in with the fore-runner of	his	resignationthat he would not haye been here to-day to continue	this	discussion.
The hon. minister said to us that he had no solution, and that he would like the cooperation of Parliament. The Government through the minister, is responsible for the administration of the affairs of the Canadian National Railways. They come to Parliament year after year asking on an average for over $100,000,000 annually to sink in this undertaking. The minister says that he has no hope of any better prospects for this railway system. Under those circumstances the logical thing would be for the minister to hand in his resignation, and for the Prime Minister to accept it. But under existing conditions the leader of the Government could not replace him, for there is no constituency that he dare open; therefore the minister is left to muddle along in the same old way. He has no solution, the Government has no solution. There is only one solution, and that is the resignation of the Government. If they acknowledge their inability to deal with matters coming before them, they should resign; and if the succeeding administration are not able to cope with the problems of government they in turn should resign, until finally we do get men who are able to administer the affairs of the country in a businesslike way. Otherwise government is a farce; it does not mean anything. The members of this administration acknowledge that they cannot handle the questions coming before them for solution, yet they hang on to office for dear life.
My hon. friend in his wonderful statement the other day gave some more or less 
inaccurate details. At page of 1052 of Hansard he stated:
In a word, out of every dollar earned we had to pay 75 cents for operating wages, and 20 cents for fuel, leaving 5 cents for all other requirements which totalled 29 cents.
The minister was referring to 1920. I am quite satisfied that his statement is accurate, because he took good care to read it, and I am sure he had some assistance in the preparation of it. Now, if he will turn to the report of the department of Railways and Canals for the year ended March 31, 1920, he will find this sentence on page 19:
It is of interest to note that for every dollar earned in the last year the railway had to pay out over 75 cents in wages.
That was in 1919. Now, the minister comes down here and tells us that in 1920 he had to pay 75 cents in wages, and he proceeded to show by implication that the increase in wages is at the root of all the trouble. He stated:
Rate increases have been given from time to time in an effort to meet increased cost of operation under the McAdoo and United States Labour Board awards, under which the average wage per employee of the Canadian National system in now $1,850 as compared with $709 before the war. The result is the operating pay roll last year was $83,505,072 as compared with $40,606,170 in 1917.
That would lead the public to believe that there had been an enormous increase in wages. Well, if my hon. friend will turn back to page 11, of his annual report for 1919, he will find, under the heading of Whge Increases that the total wages paid in 1919 were $73,000,000. So that the total wage increase, acording to his own statement, is only $10,000,000. And on top of that is given a table of the number of employees on the road, showing that they have been increased by 3442. According to his own statement the average wages would amount to more than $6,000,000, so that the employees of 1920 apparently are only getting about $4,000,000 more than they did in 1919, which is not a very great difference. But his operating deficit has increased $12,000,000; his earnings have increased $13,000,000, leaving a difference of $25,000,000 in that item. There is only from $4,000,000 to $10,000,000 taken up in wages, and yet my hon. friend would attempt to lead the country to believe that the whole difficulty is caused by excessive wages.
Now, we have asked from time to time for particulars, and we have also asked to be informed of the policy of the Government. This afternoon the Prime Minister

said that the Government was responsible for the management. I agree with him. There is no question about that; the Government must be responsible. But his general manager on the question of rates said just a few weeks ago, as reported in the Pembroke Observer of February 3:
I made this statement, that if you would give vs in Canada the same rate as South Australia (1 am speaking of the whole National system) i will pay 5J per cent on the Government debt of 2i billion dollars and 51 per cent on another Billion dollars, and then I shall have 100 million dollars to spare to play with.


John Allister Currie: Who said that?


Frank S. Cahill: Mr. Hanna, the general manager. He advocates an increase of three times the rate.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I do not rise for the express purpose of interrupting the hon. member who is now speaking, but to draw the attention of the House to the fact that when an amendment has been made to a motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply, the discussion must be strictly relevant to the amendment until it has been voted upon or otherwise disposed of. The amendment presented by the hon. leader of the Opposition declares, that it is the undoubted right of Parliament to demand and receive copies of all reports, correspondence and papers in relation to the management of every department of the public service, including the affairs of the Canadian National railways. In my opinion this amendment does- not open the door sufficiently wide to enable hon. members to discuss in detail the administration of the Canadian National railways.


Frank S. Cahill: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to point out that there must have been some correspondence between the minister and his general manager on this subject of rates, although there is this apparent conflict between them. It is all in line with our argument asking for information. The general manager makes one statement, the minister makes another. We want to have particulars of the correspondence between them. In his statement the other day the minister said:
It Is impossible for British Columbia to grow and ship fruit and lumber at the present high rates of freight. The Prairie Provinces must live from the products of the soil. They cannot p; oduce wheat and other products of their farms and ship it to foreign markets if these high freight rates are to continue indefinitely.
The minister apparently is in favour of decreased rates; his manager apparently is in favour of increasing them threefold.
I merely point this out to show the necessity for giving members of this House some information on which to base a fair judgment on the operation of this railway system. It is impossible to arrive at any conclusions if the ministry insist that they cannot give us information from day to day. I do not think there has been any question put on the Order Paper asking for information that could be considered as strictly confidential, but the minister has replied day after day with his usual stereotyped form that in regard to this service it is not in the public interest to furnish the information desired. I -think the Government would be well advised, at this time, when the people are looking to them for a solution of this railway problem, to take the House into their confidence in every detail of the operation of our national railways and to give us the fullest information possible.


Michael Clark: Mr. Speaker, in saying a very few words upon the resolution before the House I should desire very much to avoid what- I am bound to call the unwonted heat of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). That unwonted heat seemed to me to go so far as to blur my hon. friend's memory. He declaimed against the dragging of red herrings into the discussion, and he himself did a good deal in the way of dragging red herrings in-amongst others, the luxury taxes, which had no immediate connection with an amendment regarding railways on going into Committee of Supply. His memory in regard to the luxury taxes, I am quite sure, is not the same as that of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), when he says that no adverse criticism was offered to the luxury taxes at the time of their introduction. My recollection is that a good many hon. gentlemen sitting very close to the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's passed a good many criticisms upon those taxes. I was under the impression that I had criticised them somewhat myself. Now, I object to the proposition that is put forward 'by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's that every view not consonant with his on either the railway question or any other question is a "red herring." We must all have the right to express ourselves honestly and sincerely on various public questions that arise.
On first sight there seems to be a good deal in the contention of my hon. friend who leads the official Opposition that the

Government have brought this motion on themselves because through their Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) the other day they appealed to every member of the House for assistance in the solution of the railway question. It would appear to be a little difficult to give full assistance 5 p.m. without full information, but that is only at first sight. A great many general considerations [DOT] in regard to the management of railroads can surely be discussed in this House that the accounts in regard to the railroad have no bearing upon whatsoever. Apart from that, however, I do not know that my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition offered any argument, except perhaps the old argument that Parliament ought to have full control of the money affairs of the departments of the Government. There is the crux of the whole question. These railroads, for better or for worse, were taken out of the hands of a government department and put under corporate management. I think that the motion of the leader of the Opposition is, to say the least, premature, having regard to the fact that, in the first place, we are going to have at a very early day a general discussion, I understand, upon railroad matters following the statement of the Minister of Railways; and, in the second place, that the tendency of the resolution before the House this afternoon is to prejudge the whole question of Government ownership and damage the experiment of this country in that direction.
I should have thought that before bringing up what I have ventured to call this premature resolution the mover of it would have had some information to give the House as to what is done in regard to roads managed by the government in other nations of the Empire and in other nations of the world. No information of that kind has been given either by the hon. leader of the Opposition, or by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's. All that was contained in either speech was a general statement of principle with which everyone in this House agrees-the principle that government departments in their expenditure should be supervised by Parliament. Now, I am not in a position to give the information about what is done in other countries where government ownership has been adopted, but I am trying to put the case that this motion is premature and meant to damage government ownership, and I judge that that view is supported strongly by the source from which the motion comes.

I think my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) gave a view to the House that was very strong and very much calculated to impress people who are impartial upon this subject. It had an evident effect upon my hon. leader (Mr. Crerar). If all the information usually kept by a business company from a competing company is to be given by the officials of the government road to the officials of a private road which is in competition with it, is it not obvious that the government road is at once put in a position of disadvantage as compared with the competing road? I think that there is no getting away from that proposition. But the ground I want to take is simply this:	that Government ownership was
undertaken under financial conditions with regard to these roads that bristled with difficulty and that certainly were not the creation of any one party in the state and certainly not specially the creation of the party at present sitting opposite to me in this House. I want to impress this further consideration: that confronted with these difficulties the nation, through its Parliament, has made a new departure on a colossal scale, and if that departure is to be successful it must have a reasonable chance, it must have common justice meted out to it. Therefore I consider that the resolution before the House is premature and not supported by the information which we should have had before it was brought up at all.
I distrust any attitude on this great question which is obviously born in an atmosphere of suspicion. I prefer very much to approach this question in the spirit of the helpfulness and co-operation which are absolutely necessary not only among the various political parties in this country, but among the people of this country, if we are to make this great railway system the success which we have faith enough in Canada to believe it can be made.
Now, I would not like to use stronger language than I can justify, but what is the meaning of the talk about "dark lanterns" in this connection? One would suppose that every horn member who does not jump up in a state of great heat and support a resolution brought at very short notice before this House has burglarious intentions upon the assets and the good things of this country. That is the only attitude of mind which can dictate the use of such language as "dark lanterns". Personally I resent that suspicion as far as it pertains to myself. I have had no experience in burglary and I am not carry-

ing a dark lantern. I am approaching what is the greatest public question of the day, I repeat, in a spirit of helpfulness and co-operation, and that spirit I shall maintain until I see better reasons to discard it than I have seen in anything that has been advanced this afternoon.
I do not think the question of parliamentary control of the public purse is, ' strictly speaking, germane to this discussion, or that it should weigh with any hon. member in giving his vote. This is a new departure. I do not say that, if Parliament is still sitting next year, I should not vote in a different way from what I do now upon this question. It may be that the committee that is to be appointed will disclose matters that will change our views. The hon. member for Chatqauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) laughs at the idea that I might vote differently next year from the way I do now on a public question. That only shows his hide-bound partisanship and my openness of mind. They say that the man who never changes his mind has no mind to change, but I would not apply that for a moment to my hon. friend. I do not see that the principle of parliamentary control arises. We are facing a new departure. The Government, as far as I can see, have been open and above-board in their appeals upon this question. I have a firm conviction that the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), who is a young man and who has a political future before him, is engaged in an honest, straightforward and sincere attempt to give this great question fair play, to give a fair trial to the principle of government ownership in regard to our railroads which had got into an intolerable mess and a condition of bankruptcy. As long as that is the spirit which animates my right hon. friend and his Government, he can rely upon my support.


Mr. F. L. DAVIS (Neepawa) :: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the difficulty of men who have seen an attempted cross between responsible government and co-operative management, and who have been in doubt which of the parents this hybrid creature most resembles. But I am not going to pursue that line of thought; I will simply say that it explains, perhaps, much of the confusion of mind in which many numbers of the House may rest.
I want to deal with just one side of the question. I am quite sure that the great solution of our trouble is in economy; that the people of the country have not yet recognized the necessity for that economy.
That can be effected only by a reduction of many train services from daily to triweekly or twice-a-week services. As regards taking trains off, the other day I went down to the commission and asked them for certain figures. I found that the train which runs from Moncton to Campbellton was earning about 52h cents a mile one way and about 65 cents a mile the other way, whereas it costs ?2.50 a mile to run a passenger train in this country. That train had been on for years running over a route on which two other trains ran. Are you going to ask this House to decide whether-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I must direct the hon. gentleman's attention to the circumstance that the motion before the House, the amendment, has to do with the production of documents, and the question of the operation of the railways, as such, is really apart from the main question. There is, perhaps, no objection to a reference to the railways, but a discussion of the railway problem in general is certainly not the main subject.	[DOT]


Fred Langdon Davis: I think, Sir, had you allowed me to finish, you would have seen the pertinence of the illustration, because that is all that I am making. That train has been on, as I said, for years. Are you going to submit to this House every decision of the management with regard to the taking off of a train or the making of economies? It is those particulars that the House would attempt to review rather than those which the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) presented this afternoon as to the purchase of coal or supplies, and the railway's dealings with individual customers. The House will take up cases where a train runs through, perhaps, three or four constituencies, and where the constituents are up in arms against what the management considers must be done for economy. Those constituents bring the case to Parliament, and it is a case of "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours," to use a very vulgar expression. One member says, "I am going, to have-this very same trouble; support me, and I will support you." In other words, this is not the forum in which to consider such questions as that. Consequently, I say: Let us try out the question of co-operative management and see whether that will get results. I am very much in the position of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark). If that method does not succeed, I am prepared to change my mind



about it, but I do not see any prospect of success at present by going out on the lines which we followed in connection with the Intercolonial and getting a repetition of the very evil results we got there.


John Allister Currie: Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that the official leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has not couched his amendment on sufficiently broad grounds, so the whole question of the administration of the public railways of this country could now be discussed. I realize clearly that the whole House is seized of the fact that the resolution has been placed before us more in a partizan than in a public spirit, and for that reason, I do not see that any member on this side of the House will have any difficulty in voting it down. It is extremely unfortunate, at this stage in the discussion of the railway question of this country, that we should start playing politics with it,-because it is a great issue, and we are going to destroy this country entirely unless the wisest heads in this House on all sides get together and discuss this question soberly and honestly, as the leader of the Agrarian group (Mr. Crerar) has done to-day-give our best judgment and arrive at some conclusion. Because I must confess that, so far, I see nothing ahead but failure. I am one of the members of this House who were strongly in favour of bringing about the nationalization of our railways. I am in no sense a believer of communistic theories or of socialism. I believe, however, in Ruskin-ism. John Ruskin was the first to advance the theory of government control of public utilities. He went no further, and that far I am prepared to go. It is quite evident that it is not enough that we people who put up a few cheques for income tax can look around and say: "Well, we have contributed one-half, or one-fourth of the railway .deficit." With all our trouble to contribute to the income tax, we contribute only about 50 per cent of the losses on the national railways. Something must be done. It is a matter of regret that this resolution was not broader so that we could discuss the whole question. The only thing thiat we can discuss in reality is the question of the production of papers. That resolution brings us back to the old control that we had before we took over the Canadian Northern, the Mackenzie and Mann road. I am not one of those who believe that the Intercolonial was badly managed under government control; the Intercolonial railway was well managed under government control. I .
have travelled upon it many a time, and I know that its trains were just as good as those on any road in America; even the New York Central or the Illinois Central did not have better trains or better service; they were not better managed. The road was in as good or in better condition than any other road at that time in the United States or Canada. As a matter of fact for many years until recently the railway has shown a profit on its operating expenses.
Now what are we going to do on this question? Are we going to sit back and twirl our thumbs and say there is nothing than can be done, and go back to the old idea of management and have all the old troubles? Or are we like sensible men going , to discuss the que'stion here dispassionately without regard to politics? This is a time I say when there is a great industrial war on, and we should all get together the same as we did when any other war was on. Unless we on both sides of the House divest ourselves of our partisan minds on this question, the people of this country are going to sweep out of this Parliament every man who plays politics on this grave issue; for the people look with horror upon these terrible deficits that the railroads are showing. I confess that under this resolution I cannot enter into any discussion as to what causes these deficits, the only thing I can say is that certain documents should or should not he brought down. The question of whether we should have a committee or not will be discussed under another resolution. The idea to my mind is a splendid one but I cannot give any reasons in favour of itt Under this narrow resolution that has been brought in to-day which is an extremely partisan one and was intended for partisan purposes. I expected that we were to have a broad resolution and a continuous debate over some days on this railway question when we could openly discuss everything in connection with the roads. This is no time to talk about autocracy. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) says that we have autocracy in this Government. As a matter of fact while there may be a little bit too much autocracy in government, yet the members of this House have shown a self-denying spirit in the matter of railways, for we put this railway question entirely out of our hands. We have placed it in the hands of an independent body with a view to eliminating entirely parliamentary partisanship and patronage from the management. I say that was self-denial, the entire opposite

of autocracy so far as we are concerned. Whether the question was approached by us in the proper way or not I cannot say. I do not quite agree-I did not at the time- with the method by which the Government put the railways in the control of this directorate. I pointed out at that time that it was a very great mistake for the Government of this country to sign a blank cheque to any Board of Directors in charge of any large work of that kind. I said it would prove fatal to government control of these roads if there was no supervision and that it was wrong in principle. At the same time I , did hot push the matter further, but the results have demonstrated that there is no control whatever over the management of this road. The directors who have been appointed do not control the management; they do not know what is going on there at all. It is entirely wrong to put a business man in charge of a railway enterprise. Of course, I know there are a lot of business men and professional men running all over the country who can tell you more about railways - in five minutes than could' Lord Shaughnessy, for instance; they know it all. I say this is a question for specialists in railroad operation. To my mind, the people who should have been put in charge of the road should have been the best expert operators in their particular line that could be found in America. We should have had on the Board the best specialist in freight traffic, the best specialist in passenger work, the best specialist in engineering, and so forth. If we did that, we should have exactly the same condition that prevails on the Pennsylvania road, and on the New York Central in New York state, two great systems that will compare with the Canadian system. These roads, instead of putting business men on their directorates and making them vice-presidents, appoint the men who know how to operate a road, and make them responsible to the shareholders. The idea of the guinea pig director so far as the management of large enterprises is concerned, this idea of putting rich men on the directorate, is entirely wrong and antiquated.
As I said, the question before us is whether or not we are going to revert to the old system. I agree with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark); I have not made up my mind on any of these matters. I want to see the whole question discussed; I want to have the facts and the figures. It may be correct for us to vote for this resolution, but if we have all the facts be-
76i
fore us, we may find out that it would be wrong to do so. For that reason, I intend to vote against the resolution, and I do not think there is anybody on this side of the House within sound of my voice but would agree that it would be dangerous for us to" take any decided stand on this question until we have all the facts before us. The question is such a serious one that we must approach it with an entirely open mind, and give it our very best consideration. The best business minds in the House, the best legal talent, the .best thinkers must give this matter their personal consideration, and we must approach the question without any party spirit at all. Otherwise, we are liable to lead this country into bankruptcy, and we are mighty close to it now.
As to what happens at a little railway station, well, I have had information handed to me about these railways that would shock hon. members. I have heard rumours of hundred-dollar doors being put on woodsheds anjl that sort of thing. I cannot say whether those rumours are true or not. I do not know whether our roads pay more for coal than they should or whether they take on three hundred men immediately after the Canadian Pacific dismissed them. But rumours of that kind are floating around, and I feel satisfied that the proper thing for this House to do-and the Prime Minister has hinted that he is going to do it -is to appoint a committee to go into this whole question and discuss it dispassionately without politics entering into it at all. Let a committee composed of the three groups in this House discuss the whole question, with power to call for witnesses and papers, and take evidence under oath; I am sure that a committee of that sort that went into the whole question thoroughly would reach a conclusion very easily. I have never seen a committee of the House fail to come to a wise conclusion, if left alone, on any great public question. Take the question of the soldiers' pensions. No country in the world has found a better solution of the pension question than has Canada, and it was largely due to the fact that there was a wide-open committee of members of both sides of the House which went into the whole question.
There is no doubt that there is a tremendous war on between the Government railway and the railway controlled by the Canadian Pacific shareholders and directors. It is a matter for very much regret, because if that war continues, it is going to pull both roads into the hole, and I think

the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific are reaching that conclusion when we see the great fall there has been in the securities of that road. This is a condition that should not exist, because Canadian Pacific shares are one of our premier securities, and it should never be thought by the people of this country that we as a people or as members of Parliament have any idea of destroying the interest or undertaking of that large corporation. If any such a thing should occur it would be destructive to all our securities in this country. There is no doubt that there is a certain amount of jealousy and fighting between the officials of the two systems, and something should be done to stop it. I am satisfied, however, that the lesson has been learned by both managements, and that after we have had this matter thoroughly discussed by a committee of this House and the question has been fought out here, some sensible conclusion will be arrived at. This is a time when we should be more patriotic and desirous of helping our country than of keeping up the political war mind. The question is too serious. The deficits of these railways alone are as great, almost, as the total expenditure of the Government when I came into this House; and when I think of that fact I am shocked and appalled. People cannot think in these millions. We must get down to business. If there are too many trains running we must discontinue some of them, if there are too many men employed for the work to be done, we must make necessary reductions. I have considered the facts as disclosed by the Minister of Railways. The hon member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) seems to think the only test that can be applied to discover what is wrong in the railway system is the amount of the operating expenditures. The actual test is the cost per ton train mile. We have not reached that point jn the argument and the figures have not been disclosed. The expense per train ton mile will doubtless show that the percentage of expenses this year are much greater than last year. If the tonnage has not gone up in proportion to the expenses but has rather gone down, then something must be wrong with the management, because if tonnage goes down and expenditure increases, it is obvious that we are employing too many men or spending too much money in the operation of the railways.
TMr. Currie.]


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope that hon. member will bring his remarks more closely to bear on the subject.


John Allister Currie: I shall do so, Mr. Speaker. I regret very much that the motion was not framed in wider terms, because I think there should be an open discussion in this House of the management of the railways. That, however, has not been done, and I can only say that I cannot see my way clear to vote for the resolution, and I think that any man of independent mind will reach the same conclusion.


Mr. L. J. GAUTHIER (St. Hyacinthe) :: I desire to go on record on the amendment of the leader of the Opposition. To my mind it serves no other purpose than to becloud the issue that faces the country to-day. Why is this resolution before the House? Public opinion, stirred up by the newspapers of the country in consequence of the statement delivered to the House by the Minister of Railways, is now in a frenzy of unrest. Is the motion a solution of the problem? Is it a cure, a remedy? What is the situation? We are actually controlling 17,000 miles of railway under government ownership, and when the Grand Trunk Railway system will have been acquired we shall own, 22,500 .miles, the greatest railway system in the world. When the Government of the day decided to go into the ownership of railways, it was on certain conditions and in the face of certain opposition. I for one have opposed public ownership. I believe that it is not sensible in view of the competition of privately owned companies. But there are some people in this country, as there are members in this House, who have faith in the principle of public ownership; and there is a Government that went on record as being confident in its soundness. Therefore it is the duty of members in this House to give to everyone who believes in public ownership an opportunity to prove whether or not it is feasible and profitable.


Mr. McCREA:: How long a time do you
require to prove that?


Louis Joseph Gauthier: I am willing to discuss the railway situation whenever the question is under consideration. But I claim that the submission to this Parliament of every bit of correspondence, and every communication relative to the railways, will not provide a remedy for the situation. The evil is in connection with the management.

and you cannot eradicate it by any ventilation of all this correspondence in Parliament. You must have an up-to-date management; you must have supervision; you must have the strictest economy and the highest efficiency. You will not find this in Parliament; you will find it in the management which you will secure for the roads. And I hope that the Government of the day will be strong enough to give td all those who favour public ownership an opportunity to show whether it can be made a success or not. In taking that position I do so against my own opinion. But I believe in the rule of the majority. The majority has decided that we should undertake the experiment of public ownership. Then let the majority rule; let them have a chance to show whether or not public ownership will be profitable. Do not try to becloud the issue; do not try to stir up feeling against those people who believe in the theory. I say, give them a chance, and when the question of public ownership of railways is brought before the House, then everyone will be at liberty to suggest any remedy which, in his opinion, is capable of solving the problem which confronts Canada to-day.


Mr. LUCIEN CANNON (Dorchester):: If I rightly understood the remarks of the last speaker, the hon. member for St. Ilyacinthe, there may be some doubt as to his position on this question. He is in favour of private ownership; he does not favour public ownership; nevertheless, he is willing to change his opinion at the expense of the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member has no right to put into my mouth, for the purpose of bolstering up his argument, words which I never used.


Lucien Cannon: The interpretation I have given the speech of my hon. friend I honestly base on my understanding of his remarks. The hon. gentleman said most explicitly that he did not believe in public ownership, but that nevertheless he was willing to alter his views-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not at all.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: I never made such a statement.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The rule is very clear, that if an hon. member makes a statement, it must be accepted by the House. On the other hand, however, it is quite competent for an hon. member to give his own interpretation of the remarks of any other member and base an argument thereupon. The remarks of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe will appear in Hansard and will stand as he stated them.


Lucien Cannon: I do not want to be unjust in any way to the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe. He has delivered his speech and it is open to interpretation by every member of the House. Now, coming back to what I was saying. I say that the hon. gentleman declared that he was opposed to public ownership, but nevertheless would vote against this amendment so as to allow the Government to run the railways of this country in the way they have been running them for the last three years-and we know what results have attended that administration. The question before the House is much wider, broader, more general, than hon. members, including the member for St. Hyacinthe, have seen fit to consider it. The stand taken by the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government of Canada -no matter whether it is a Liberal, a Tory, a Farmer or a Nationalist Government-cannot spend the public moneys of this country without rendering due account to the people's representatives. The amendment is not simply to be narrowed down to the railway issue in Canada-the issue is the very general one as to whether this Government is responsible to Parliament. The railway issue has been discussed. We might also discuss the matter of the Canadian Mercantile Marine; we might discuss every expenditure made by this Government for the last three or four years. The Opposition says to the Government: "If you wish to have money for the coming year then before these moneys are voted, you must do what every other Government in a constitutional country does-render proper accounts to the members of this House." This has not been done. Whenever information is sought, whenever information is demanded, the members of the Government-for some reason or other-have always refused to give us that information with respect to many matters of vital importance to the Canadian people.
Referring briefly to the side issue of railways, and putting aside the very general issue of the responsibility of the Government to the House of Commons, I say we have reached a stage in Canada where the railway situation has to be discussed openly, frankly and sincerely. I agree

with all the members who have spoken on either side, that the issue is so big, so vast, that it is not to be discussed in a partisan way. I, for one, do not intend to so discuss it. But the Government cannot run away from its own record, and the Government is responsible for the situation as it exists to-day. Who took over the Canadian Northern railway, who took over the Grand Trunk railway, who took over the Grand Trunk Pacific? This Government, or its predecessor; and the financial situation we are facing to-day is the direct result and consequence of the policy adopted by it. This is one fact that W cannot ignore. Another fact is that, in the light of the present unfavourable financial situation, if we had the facts put before the House, if the officials of all the public departments would give to us the information to which we are entitled, we would come to the conclusion that the East once more is paying for the West; and every business man in the eastern provinces is realizing to-day that on account of western demands they are facing a situation that cannot last much longer. I have not been surprised at the attitude taken by the Agrarian group on this question. It is in the interest of that group, it is in the interest of the western farmers at large, to see that the eastern people, or rather the population of the eastern provinces, do not realize exactly the liabilities and the obligations put on their shoulders by the situation that exists in the West. I do not wish to insist much longer on this phase of the question, but I say that it does not matter whether you belong to the Liberal party, whether you belong to the Tory party, or whether you belong to the Agrarian party-some day you will have to solve the whole financial and the whole railway problem in Canada. Then the eastern provinces will demand from the Government whether they are to continue paying,for the western provinces, and much will depend on the answer that shall be given. Those who say that this question should not be discussed from a political point of view are absolutely right. It must be discussed from a national point of view, and in the correct solution of the issue will be found the settlement of the question of our national unity in the future. The East has done very much for the West. The West has been built up by the East. And it seems, Mr. Speaker, that the East must continue to pay for the West, and the West will refuse to pay anything for the East. These are very 
grave questions and I think they should be discussed thoroughly, either before the House itself or before committees appointed for that purpose. I shall support the amendment presented by the leader of the Opposition because it embodies the high constitutional principle of parliamentary responsibility, and I say that this Government has no right to spend public moneys without giving to the representatives of the people that information to which they are entitled.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: 
Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member
permit me a question? Does he contend that every amendment moved in this House, no matter what its terms, which becomes a motion of want of confidence must be supported. Irrespective, I say again, of its terms, by any who have not confidence in the general policy of the administration?


Charles Murphy: Mr. Speaker, with all
respect to my right hon. friend, I have been too long in this House, and I have crossed swords with him too often, to be drawn into any argument of that kind. If I were to remind the House to-day of the resemblance that the right hon. gentleman bears to the famous character pictured by Butler, it would not be the first time that I had done so, because on a former occasion I likened him to Hudibras of whom Butler said:
He could distinguish and divide
A hair twixt South and Southwest side.
Now, Sir, following your endeavours to keep hon. members to the amendment before the House, I desire to run over briefly some of the arguments that have been advanced in opposition to this amendment. As I have said, the only politics that has been introduced was introduced by the right hon. gentlemen himself. All that is said in this amendment is, that if you are going to discuss it from the standpoint of the Canadian National Railway system, then, as that system is a public undertaking, we, as the representatives of the people, are entitled to the fullest possible information regarding that undertaking. That is all this amendment says, and less than that we could not say if we are to discharge properly our trust to the public who send us here. Then, Sir, I object to the insinuation, no matter from what quarter it comes, that anybody on this side of the House, any more than any other hon. gentleman sitting in any other quarter of this chamber, is actuated by a desire to introduce politics or to discuss the merits or demerits of public
ownership. These questions do not enter into this amendment, and I decline to discuss them. The amendment should be discussed simply in accordance with the language in which it is expressed.
In his speech this afternoon my right hon. friend, following the example set by the hon. Minister of Railways a few days ago, invited expressions of opinion from hon. members on both sides of this House. That invitation we on this side have responded to, and when we do respond, the charge is made against us, either that we are opposed to public ownership, or that we are introducing politics. The invitation, Sir, I am bound to say could only relate, having regard to the language and attitude of my right hon. friend, to a discussion of the latter part of the amendment dealing with the Canadian National Railway system. But as pointed out by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) and by my hon. friend who sits to my right (Mr. Fielding) this amendment raises a much wider question than that. It goes to the whole root of responsible government, and it brings directly in issue the question of ministerial responsibility to a parliament representing what is supposed to be a free and democratic people. That is what this amendment is designed toJ bring before this chamber, and not what has been discussed by the majority of the hon. members who have spoken in opposition to the amendment.
Now, let me run over briefly some of the things that were said by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. In the course of his remarks he admitted that the Government was responsible for the success of the Canadian National system; but he said that they were not immediately accountable for day-to-day operation. Well, Sir, that may be useful perhaps as an admission, but it does not go to the root of the matter raised by this amendment, and the only observation that I desire to make upon it at the moment is that in view of what the right hon. Prime Minister admits, that the Government is being responsible for the success of the system, therefore the Government must also be responsible for the failure of the system-a failure that was put forth the other day by the Minister of Railways and Canals in terms that have staggered the whole Dominion.
Further, the right hon. gentleman said that if details of day-to-day operation were to be given the business of Parliament would he held up and made impossible. But here may I point out to the right hon. gentleman and to the House

that neither in the amendment itself, nor in the speech supporting it delivered by the hon. leader of the Opposition, was any specific method mentioned as to how this information, to which the representatives of the people are entitled, should be given to Parliament. That question was left entirely in the large, and I submit, Sir, that acceptance of the terms of this amendment would not at all have the effect which was foreshadowed by the right hon. Prime Minister.
Then the right hon. gentleman went on to point out that in his opinion, if information were brought down as requested by this amendment with reference to the Canadian National Railway system, that would operate to the injury of the Canadian National Railway system, for the reason that such information would become the property of its great competitor, the Canadian Pacific railway. Well, I have only to repeat what my hon. friend from Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) and other hon. gentlemen have said, namely, that there is nothing done by the Canadian National Railway system or by its board or by any of those connected with its management that is not known within a very few hours to the management and directors of the Canadian Pacific railway. The Canadian Pacific railway is, as has been stated, one of the most successfully operated and best managed transportation systems in the world, and no amount of information that might be brought down in this House or before any committee of this House would add anything to the information of those who are charged with the. duty of managing and operating the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Therefore I dismiss that argument, and so will any practical business man, without any further consideration.
The right hon. gentleman also asked if the Canadian Pacific railway was shrouded in any mystery, and he answered his own question in the negative. That answer was correct. But then he added that neither was the Canadian National Railway system shrouded in any mystery. Well, that <s just exactly where we join issue with him. We say it is shrouded in mystery, and the proof of our assertion is that whenever information is asked for from this side of the House it is denied on the ground that it would not be in the public interest to bring that information down. That is where we say the shrouding in mystery comes in in regard to the Canadian National Railway system. But there is also another difference to be pointed out in this regard, namely that there is no necessity for

shrouding the Canadian Pacific railway in mystery. That road, as I have already said, is a successfully managed road and produces dividends; the reverse, according to the Minister of Railways and Canals, is the case with the Canadian National Railway system. And there is this further difference, that the Canadian Pacific railway, if it did make deficits, would not, as is the case with the Canadian National Railway system, come to this House from time to time	and ask the
representatives of the people to vote moneys to make up	those deficits.
Then the hon. gentleman proceeded and asked, what is to be done? I took down his exact words. He said: "If Parliament set to work through a committee of this House to evolve some rule that could be followed, it would evolve something definite and concrete." Now, Mr. Speaker, just mark that sentence, and at once you trace the resemblance to the historic character with whom I compared the right hon. gentleman a few moments ago. Let me read that again: "If Parliament set to work through a committee of this House to evolve some rule that could be followed, it would evolve something definite and concrete." In that you have the right hon. Prime Minister's solution of this whole railway question.
Then the right hon. gentleman expressed a preference for a committee-at least, he seemed to do so. I should not make any very definite statement with regard to anything my right hon. friend says or does; I have known him too long and too well to do that. But the right hon. gentleman, following the sentence that I have just quoted, seemed to indicate some interest in any event in the resolution which stands on the Order Paper in the name of the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) and intimated that if the committee provided for by that resolution were appointed, parties could be brought before it and all necessary information given there by officials connected, not only with the Canadian National Railway system, but with other roads as well.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


Charles Murphy: Mr. Speaker, just before you left the Chair at six o'clock, I had mentioned that the Prime Minister had based one of his objections to the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposi-

tion, on the fact that the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) had, standing in his name on the Order Paper, a motion providing for the appointment of another standing committee in addition to those already appointed by the House. The right hon. gentleman spoke in approving terms of the proposed new committee, and in the course of his observations with reference to it, he said that it might well be considered as likely to meet the situation raised by the amendment of the leader of the Opposition. That language evidently appealed to the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), as in the course of the remarks that he made following those of the Prime Minister, my hon. friend also expressed his approval of the creation of this new standing committee, and in answer to a question addressed to him by the leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Marquette said that he thought that any question could be asked and the answer could be obtained before this new standing committee. That reply seemed to me to be based on an erroneous idea of the scope and powers of a standing committee of this House. Lef me point out to my hon. friend in the first place that, when such a committee is appointed, it remains an inert thing; it does not function; it remains just so many names on a piece of paper until something is referred to it by this House for inquiry or investigation or report. Even when that has been done, in order that it may discharge the function which, it seems to me, the hon. member for Marquette had in mind it would perform as a matter of course, it must also receive from this House authority to send for persons, papers and records. Besides that, it must receive authority to examine witnesses under oath, and then under an Act it has "power to administer oaths to such witnesses. In order to accomplish what the hon. member for Marquette seemed to think this new committee would accomplish, all that I have mentioned would, in the first place, have to be done. In the next place, as I have stated, something would have to be referred to that committee, and in order to get the information that my hon. friend thought such a committee would get, the whole railway' situation as it affects the Canadian National Railway system at this time, would have to be referred to the committee and the committee would have to be invested with the powers and jurisdiction which I have just outlined before any information
worth having could be obtained. If the hon. member for Marquette can have that done, or if there is a possibility that such a thing would be done by the Government, I admit that the hon. gentleman would have some ground on which to base his argument. But if that is not done,-and I have very grave doubt that any such thing would be done,-with all respect I would point out to my hon. friend that his argument along that line and on that point proceeds from an error with regard to the facts.
Now, if such a committee were appointed, let me direct the attention of the House to the fact that my hon. friend and those who argue with him would then be impaled on either horn of another dilemma. My hon. friend, following the lead of the Prime Minister, had urged very strongly, against the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition, that in the getting of the information which they seemed to think would be got by the adoption of this amendment, information would be given to the great rival of the Canadian National Railway system, and that the giving of such information would operate to the injury of the government-owned and operated railway. If the suggestion of the hon. gentleman be followed, if this committee be appointed, and if this committee is not to be a body conducting its investigations after the manner of a star chamber, if this committee is to sit in public and to examine publicly persons, records and documents, then the information that will be elicited will be information, not only for the Canadian Pacific railway, but for all the world. So I ask my hon. friends who were urging against the amendment of the leader of the Opposition, the argument that to adopt it would mean the giving of information to the Canadian Pacific how they are going to get away from the greater volume of information that would be given by holding sessions of such a committee as that. They are impaled on either horn of that dilemma, and I leave the hon. gentlemen to select which of those horns they prefer.
Let me deal with this matter very briefly from another and, perhaps, a more important point of view. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid), a few days ago, and the Prime Minister this afternoon, invited discussion and suggestions, and hon. members who spoke from this side, and, indeed, from all quarters of the House, expressed their willingness to ac-

cept the invitation and to give such assistance in the solution of the railway difficulties that confront us as they would, in the exercise of their best judgment and their greatest diligence, be able to give. Some doubt was cast, without any reason whatever, upon the bona-fides of statements of that kind emanating from the Opposition. Without going into that, let me point out that in order to discuss a thing, you must know what that thing is. If we are to discuss the railway situation, we must know all the facts that produced that situation. If we are to discuss the conditions which have brought about the situation with which the country is confronted to-day, and for being the cause of which I, in any * event would not think of blaming hon. gentlemen who now sit opposite-if, we are to discuss that situation and if we are to suggest the remedies which, in our judgment, should be applied, to change that situation, to put an end to those huge deficits and to put the railway system, owned and operated by the Government, on a proper basis, surely it is elementary that before we can do that, we must have before us the facts relating to the whole situation.
Let me point out a few things bearing on the proposition which I have just laid down and which, I submit, cannot be successfully refuted. On the 14th of the present month, the gentleman who at present occupies the position of chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada delivered a speech before a club in this city. I refer to the Hon. F. B. Carvell, whose speech on the occasion to which I have referred attracted nation-wide attention. In order that I may not transgress the rules of the House, and for the purpose of keeping strictly to the amendment that is now before us for discussion, I will quote just two sentences of the speech as bearing on the subject at issue. In the Ottawa Journal of March 15, there appears a report of the speech in question, and Mr. Carvell is represented as having made these statements:	[DOT]
The Government railway losses last year were far greater than recently reported. They are \ery much more than what has appeared on the surface.
I am not going to comment upon those statements, but I am going to draw the attention of the House to what was said a day or two later by one of the leading journals^ in this country with reference to those statements. In the Toronto Globe of the 17th instant, there appears an editorial, the title of which is "Are these charges

true"? Ag'ain, in order to confine myself strictly to the amendment, I will read just those portions of the editorial which bear upon the matter which we are discussing. In the course of that article the Globe said, referring to the statements which I have just cited as being made by Mr. Carvell:
If words mean anything, Mr. Carvell charges the board of management of the Canadian National railways or the Minister of Railways, or both, with making false representations as to the condition of the people's railways. The losses, he asserts, are very much more than what has appeared on the surface. Is Dr. Reid content to let this imputation of deceit and concealment rest upon him?
Those are not my words, nor do I associate myself with them at the moment. Later on in the editorial there are these further observations:
Are the figures false, and presented to Parliament with the intent to deceive? If they are, Mr. Carvell will do the people of Canada a service by stating wherein they are untrue.
These are the comments of one of the leading newspapers of Canada upon that portion of the speech of the Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners to which I have just drawn the attention of the House. Certainly no more serious comment could be made upon that statement than those that are made in that editorial of the Globe, and if for no other reason than to place himself right, my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals, and the Government of which he is a member, should, I submit, welcome the earliest possible opportunity, and any method that offers itself, to place all available information before' the public so as to disprove the gravity of the charges contained in the speech delivered by Mr. Carvell.
Now, the speech itself was not alone the only serious statement that went forth to the Canadian public. A statement made in this House a day or two later by the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals, in disclosing the railway situation as it exists in Canada at the present time, has stirred several journals supporting the Government to give expression to their views in very plain terms. I am not going to quote from them at any great length, nor in fact will I refer to any but one, and in doing so I will again confine myself to that part of the article which is germane to the subject under discussion.
The Ottawa Journal in its issue of the 15th instant, in referring to the disclosures made by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals in this House in presenting the statement to which I have alluded, said this:

The people appear willing to assume the burden, and that attitude would justify the utmost frankness upon the part of the Minister of Railways. At the moment they are asking for full information as to the exact volume of the burden involved, and that is a reasonable desire. The burden itself neither swells nor shrinks under the light of truth. To say that ''this total does not include fixed charges on the Intercolonial and the National Transcontinental" falls short of meeting the popular desire for information in a spirit of perfeot candor.
That language, Mr. Speaker, is not the language of a Liberal. That language is not the language of any hon. member sitting on this side of the House. That language, Sir, is not the language of an opponent of this Government. That language is the language of a journal than which there is no stronger supporter of the present Government in the whole Dominion of Canada, and surely, Sir, the Government will take notice of this statement of the Journal, speaking of the people that- "At the moment they are asking for full information as to the exact volume of the burden involved, and that is a reasonable desire." Mr. Speaker, that language applies aptly to the terms of the amendment introduced by the hon. the leader of the Opposition, and in support of which I am citing this editorial for the information of this House. Then how true it is as the Journal states further: "The burden itself neither swells nor shrinks under the light of truth." And how well deserved this reproof is in the concluding part of the extract in which the language used by the minister is quoted, when the . Journal observes: "To say that 'this total does not include fixed charges on the Intercolonial and the National Transcontinental' falls short of meeting the popular desire for information in a spirit of perfect candor." Now, Sir, I submit that from this source, from this newspaper favourable to the * Government, comes the very strongest en-dorsation of the position taken by the hon. the leader of the Opposition in his amendment.
But, Sir, there are a couple of other incidents that illustrate the need for information to which I might with propriety allude before I resume my seat. Occasionally we do get some information from the Government, but no sooner do we get it than one of two things happens: either it is pointed out the next day that the information is erroneous, or, as happened with reference to two statements made by the Government on different occasions, there is such a direct conflict of fact that further information is absolutely necessary.
Now, to illustrate the first point, I need only remind the House that a short time ago my hon. friend, the Minister of Railways and Canals, in replying to a question asked by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) with regard to the number of locomotives built by the Montreal Locomotive company for this Government since the year 1917, and replying to a further question as to the value of these locomotives, gave an answer to the House one day saying that the value was $1,300,000 odd. On that day he also stated that his colleague, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, was a director of the locomotive company which manufactured these locomotives. Then, Sir, on the following day, my hon. friend, the Minister of Railways and Canals, rose in his seat and corrected the figures that had been given to him to present to the House the previous day, and said that the value of the locomotives built by this company since the year 1917, this company of which his colleague, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, is a director, instead of being $1,300,000 odd was thirteen millions and some odd thousand dollars. Now, Mr. Speaker, in the light of errors of that kind in information furnished by the Government itself, and directly bearing on the railway situation in this country, surely we are entitled to the fullest possible information as to the whole series of contracts given this locomotive company,-as to the type and size of locomotives they built, as to the comparison of costs between these locomotives when built by that company and the same locomotives when built by any other company. Further, I submit, we are entitled to another comparison, a comparison of the cost of these locomotives, and locomotives of the same type and size when built for a private-owned and privately operated company. [DOT] Further than that, we are entitled,
I also submit, to this additional information: we ought to know how much locomotives of the same type and size cost in the United States as compared with the cost in Canada.
I am only citing these as one branch, and * a very small branch, of the inquiry that ought to be made and of the information that ought to be given before any hon. gentleman^ in this House or any citizen of this country can intelligently approach the discussion of what is generally referred to as the present railway situation.
One other illustration and I have done. At the time the Estimates were brought down in this House a statement was given

to the newspapers by the Government in explanation of the appalling state of affairs disclosed by these Estimates. In that statement reference was made to the amount of operating loss, and the amount that was then mentioned was a few days later proved to be quite incorrect and much below the actual figure when the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals made his official statement in this House. This incident, illustrating the unreliability of the figures given to this House, and illustrating further, the fact that the hon. the Minister of Railways apparently cannot depend upon those who are responsible for furnishing him with this information was dealt with in a communication to the Montreal Star, from which I intend to quote a few sentences. The Star has begun the publication of a series of articles on the railway situation contributed by Mr. J. L. Payne, a gentleman who under this and former Governments occupied the position of Chief Railway Statistician for the Dominion of Canada. The first of these letters appeared in the Star of Saturday last, and a supplementary letter was published yesterday. In this supplementary letter Mr. Payne makes reference to the discrepancy to which I have just alluded, in the following terms:
The newspaper figuresthat is to say, those handed out by the Government concurrently with the introduction of the Estimates in this House.
-had placed the operating loss at $21,250,000 fiom which I deduct 5,000,000 on account of probable net operating earnings by the Grand Trunk; but Dr. Reid showed that the loss for the past year from operation had been $36,842,-S' 0.17. To the extent of the difference between $21,250,000 and that sum, the deficit for the current year may be taken as having been Inc-eased.
So that whether we are denied information, or whether we get information which is immediately afterwards proven to be incorrect, it is quite evident that neither we in this House, nor the citizens of the country at large, are in a position even to approach the discussion of the railway situation until there is available a far greater volume of information than that which we and the people now possess, and until that information is obtained through sources upon which we may rely as being absolutely correct.
My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), in discussing the amendment presented by the leader of the Opposition, took exceptions to it upon two grounds. In the first place, he said it was prema-

ture; and besides that, he contended that it was not supported by information which we should have had before the amendment was introduced. Well now, I submit to my hon. friend that not only is this amendment not premature, but that the time has arrived-indeed that the time has passed- when this House should take a stand, such as that proposed by the amendment, to assert its rights and privileges with regard to information to which members of Parliament are entitled as representatives of the people of Canada. I cannot for a moment admit, therefore, that the amendment is at all premature. As regards the argument that the amendment is not supported by information which we should have had before it was brought forward,
I	confess that I do not quite understand this contention of my hon. friend. It is quite unlike him. He is usually remarkable, not only for clarity of speech, but also for clarity of thought. But without labouring that point, may I draw his attention and the attention of the House to the fact that his objection is baseless. He says that the amendment should be supported by information which we ought to have had before it was brought into the House. Well, Sir, we tried to get information and were refused it, and to-day we are seeking the very thing which the hon. member says we should have got. From that point of view, therefore, I invite my hon. friend to revise the opinion he expressed this afternoon, and to be logical, as he usually is, by voting with the members of the Opposition in suport of the amendment.


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Halifax) :: The question involved in the amendment of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) is not without difficulties, and I desire to say a word or two thereon before voting upon the question. Notwithstanding your very excellent voice, Mr. Speaker, which usually covers this chamber to the satisfaction of every hon. member, I am sure it is not to be presumed, upon a single reading of a motion, that it has been clearly followed by hon. gentlemen, and I should like to read the amendment again for my own satisfaction, and possibly for the information of the House. It is as follows:
That subject to the reservation that in exceptional cases there may be documents of a c mfidential character which, in the public interest, may properly be withheld from publication ; the House declares that It is the undoubted right of Parliament to demand and receive copies of all reports, accounts, correspondence and papers in relation to the management of

every department of the public service, including the affairs of the Canadian National railways, whether operating directly under the control of a department or under corporate form.
After a reading of that resolution, and a careful observance of the text, it may be that hon. gentlemen are not far apart, even accepting the views already expressed to-day as being the judgment of the House generally. The amendment uses the term "confidential," which is the qualifying portion of the resolution; and I think it of some importance to inquire just for a moment as to what that word means. I assume that the leader of the Opposition, in incorporating that term into his amendment, did not wish thereby to imply that the only documents that were to be withheld from Parliament were those merely ' which had been marked "confidential" by the writer, or which had been so considered by the recipient of the letter. I assume- in fact I hope-that he did not intend to use the word in that restrictive sense. I should think that he meant that if the Government considered that any special document asked for by Parliament should not be disclosed to the House or to the public, because it was against the public interest, therefore it would be a confidential document. If I unfairly interpret the hon. gentleman's use of that particular word I trust he will correct me. The Canadian National Railways, of which the people of Canada are the shareholders, is a business institution and, as has been pointed out by several speakers during the course of the debate, it has its competitors. As every hon. gentleman knows, there is in all business affairs a great deal that cannot be divulged to the public. This, I think, is regarded as a safe principle which is always followed by corporations and their shareholders, who usually protest against the disclosure of facts to the public, except through the medium of shareholders' meetings. This principle is regarded by private individuals as a sound one, and it is one that is usually observed. Therefore, when I say that in all business affairs there is much that is confidential and must not be disclosed to the public. I think I am stating what is axiomatic and which will be accepted by every hon. gentleman in the House. If I am right in my interpretation of the qualifying section of the amendment I would say that if upon a motion for documents, the Government believe that disclosure or publication of the same would be against the national interests, would be
against the interests of the Canadian National Railway system, they would refuse to divulge or publish the same on that ground and therefore those documents would be regarded as confidential. It is true that the Government must take the responsibility of determining what information shall be given to the public, what documents relative to the administration of the Canadian National railway system shall be divulged. It may be that the opponents of the Government might differ from them in their view as to what was confidential and what was not confidential, as to what information should be divulged and what should be maintained as purely for the guidance of those interested. In that event Parliament would have to judge as to who was right and who was wrong; and ultimately it would be the right and duty of the public, who are the proprietors of the railway system, to determine as to whose position was correct-that of the Government or that of their opponents. If my interpretation of the amendment of the leader of the Opposition is correct-and it does seem the proper one, it does seem the natural and obvious interpretation

so far as I am concerned I cannot see any objection to it. It expresses a principle which it seems to me would be very dangerous for this Parliament to oppose or to deny. After all, it is within the power of the Government to determine what information they judge to be in the public interest to divulge and what they deem not proper to divulge. I therefore fail to see upon what principle the amendment should be denied by the House.
I should be reluctant to oppose the amendment upon another ground. A few days ago the Minister of Railways presented his annual statement upon the railways owned and controlled by the Government, and I think the statement as to form was a very excellent one. Upon reading it, subsequent to its deliverance, I find that not only is it in splendid form, but it gives a very great deal of information. The minister stated there would be a deficit of $70,000,000 this year in operating and fixed charges. He also estimates that for the current year there will be a deficit of $50,000,000 for operating and fixed charges. When one reflects upon the world-wide conditions to-day, when one recalls the commercial and financial conditions in all the leading countries of the world, he might be pardoned if he did say that the deficit in the current year would probably be as large as it was last year. Now this deficit, Mr. Speaker, must be made up by the people of

Canada in the form of taxation. There is no royal road by which we can secure that amount of money to square the accounts of the Canadian National Railway system, except by obtaining it through taxation upon the people of the Dominion.


Michael Clark: We might
save on the railroads.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That would lessen the amount to be taken from the people by taxation, but the principle would not be varied by the difference in amount. It being true that this enormous deficit must be made up through taxation from the people I, at least, shall be very reluctant to give adherence to the principle that Parliament must not, in the general sense at any rate, be afforded the fullest information that it deems necessary in connection with the operation of that railway system and which goes to make up a deficit for which the people have to be taxed. It is quite true that a great deal of information might well be denied Parliament and the public by the Government and by the management of the railway system, but speaking in the general sense, I say, they are entitled to all information. The exceptions can only be determined as the cases arise, and when they come before us in a concrete form. Then, and only then, I submit can we determine what information should be refused the public and Parliament by the Government and by the management of the railways, and all one can do at the present time is to either affirm or deny the. general principle embodied in the amendment which is now before us for consideration. Very much has been said this afternoon in connection with the operation of the National railway system that is commendable. For the present at least we are the proprietors of these railways, the mileage of which will be enlarged when the Grand Trunk system is acquired. It does not follow from my remarks, or from the fact that we are the proprietors of this National railway system, that members of Parliament should ask all sorts of questions, and move for the production of all sorts of documents, without discretion and without discrimination. Many questions are asked, I think, which are not informative to anybody, which are not perhaps in the national interest, and which are not perhaps in the interest of the railway system itself. I admit, Sir, it is sometimes difficult to determine, as a matter of fact, what questions are relevant, what are important, what are informative,
[Mr. Maclean.!
and what are or are not in the national interest. The answers to some questions, it has been suggested by some hon. gentleman this afternoon, may be quite satisfying to curious and inquisitive people outside of Parliament, but it does not necessarily follow that it is in the public interest that such questions should be asked, and only questions that are in the public interest should be asked. Nor does it follow that because some persons, whom some of us in this House represent, desire questions to be asked, the time of Parliament should be taken up either in the asking or in the answering of them. It was inevitable, Mr. Speaker, that the issue involved in this motion should have arisen. I assume that every hon. member felt that when the policy of government ownership and control was adopted, this very issue was bound to be projected into Parliament. It is one of the difficulties incident to and inherent in Government ownership, and we must make the best of it. It may be true that the privilege of asking questions and demanding the production of documents has not up to the present been abused. I am hardly in a position to state that it has been. Probably we will acquire a better standard as to what should be required in this connection by having no rule whatever rather than attempting to regulate it by standing orders or by rules. But I am sure we will all agree that having accepted the tremendous responsibility of becoming the owners and operators of 17,000 or 18,000 miles of railway, that railway should be given a fair trial, and it should not in any way be prejudiced by the attitude taken by hon. gentlemen.
Now I have admitted, Mr. Speaker, that Parliament is entitled to a great deal of information. If the people are to be taxed to meet large deficits in future, as they will be, it naturally follows that they will expect a great deal of information from Parliament. But while the people and Parliament are entitled to this infdrmation, still we should contrive some method by which such information should reach Parliament and the people other than through the Order Paper or the ordinary channels. Refe'rence has been made to my motion now upon the Order Paper asking for the establishment of a standing committee upon Government-owned railways and shipping. I am not going to discuss that motion, but I propose to debate it at the earliest opportunity. I might say, however, that one of the reasons which moved me to place that motion upon the Order Paper was the hope

that this committee would work out some method by which Parliament and the people might be kept better informed in future on railway affairs. I also entertained the hope that some regulations or standing orders might be set up which would in some way control the means by which Parliament and [DOT] the people would be kept informed, thus saving much of the time of Parliament.
In connection with our railway questions,
I think I am uttering but the simple truth when I say that Parliament and the people require information. During the past fifteen or twenty years, at least during the time that I have been a member of this House, it seems to me, reflecting on the years that have gone by, that Parliament has abdicated its functions, particularly in relation to railway matters. We were not informed thereon, and it would appear that we did not take care always to be informed; too blindly did we follow the Government's view of or perhaps some section of [DOT] public opinion. But I submit that we have reached the time when Parliament should become informed upon this great national issue, in which is involved a problem that will confront us for many years to come. In the absence, however, of an alternative method of informing Parliament upon that problem and of dealing with the very issue raised in this amendment, I think the amendment does contain a principle which should be affirmed, though in practice it should perhaps be strictly qualified, and therefore I propose to support it.


The Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, without attempting to throw blame on any one in particular, the thought strikes me that it would have been better in so far as the aim of the discussion was to really accomplish something which would be profitable in the way of understanding the present railway situation, and, after understanding it, to take measures to improve it, had a more opportune moment been chosen when the discussion would have been placed upon a somewhat wider plane and would, I think, have issued in better results. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) knew very well that the motion which was placed on the Order Paper by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) would probably be reached within a day. Why was it necessary then, by injecting a motion in amendment to the Government's motion to go into Supply, to bring up the question on a narrow basis, rather than approach it as a whole House from both sides in the
only proper spirit in which it can be approached-an entire .negation of any desire to make party capital on one side or the other, and a full purpose in a very solemn and a very careful way to front the problem than which no more important problem has been before the Parliament of Canada since Confederation? If there is anything that should make a parliament sober and earnest and honest with itself, it is a situation such as that which confronts us to-day.
I do not think that men on this side or men on that side of the House, if they are going to arrive at a proper solution of this problem, have any time to waste in throwing boquets one at the other as to who was the way-back cause of the present situation. I think it should make some of us very humble in our criticisms if we let our memories go back to the antecedent times during which the bases were formed which have eventuated in the situation confronting us to-day. I for one do not propose to go into ancient history as to which particular party or government was in part or in whole to blame. The fact is that we have a very serious proposition before us upon which the economic and financial and national progress depends in a very essential way.
That is my view of the situation and the way in which we should approach it, and my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition does not appear to me to have taken the best course in the light of that broad, general interest by interjecting this amendment on the motion to go into Supply. He will take my criticism as a kindly criticism. I could have hoped that we should have been spared this and should have come to the discusion of the situation on broad, general lines.
My hon. friend, the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), has endeavoured to define the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition. I tried to follow his definition, and it seemed to me that he took about three different positions in that regard. I followed him sympathetically in the first; I then had to reverse the engine and follow him sympathetically in the second, and so with the third, and I got confused and troubled about it. I think I shall have to have some further light from my hon. friend before I can exactly see the point towards which he was going. My hon. friend who leads the Opposition knows the English language and the meaning of its words; he knows not only the colloquial meaning but also

the official meaning of the word "confidential." Looking thro.ugh his vocabulary, without having to go to the dictionary- because I am sure he has a vast choice of words-my hon. friend chose that one word "confidential," and put it into his motion, and it is an essential part of that motion. If the word "confidential" meant what the member for Halifax read as its meaning in his first interpretation of it, the leader of the Opposition would have been just as well up in business, just as far up in the line, if instead of putting into his motion something about confidential information he had incorporated in it the affirmation that as a rule the sun rises every morning and sets every night-a self-evident truth. If "confidential" means what the member for Halifax had in mind, what kind of information will my hon. friend get, and those who vote for his amendment, if the amendment carries? Exactly the information which the Government chooses to give him in the light of the public interest and no more.
Talking about the privileges of the House and the different disposition of, powers of government and claims of justice to members of Parliament, has anybody ever taken the position that as this chamber votes the money, so this chamber has the right to know to the last dollar how it has been expended? I have not heard that position taken in this House, but if it is true, it is equally true that a government is a mere automaton and has neither the right nor the power of existence in fact if it does not face every now and then the question as to what information it is in the public interest that it should give out. If the Government thinks it is not in the public interest that information should be given at a certain time or on a certain line, it is not only the right but the absolute duty of that government to withhold the information. One principle is just as necessary in government as the other; one is just as strongly entrenched in the constitution and in the general division of powers as the other. So that I would like to know the answer of my hon. friend the leader of [DOT]the Opposition as to his coincidence with interpretation number one given by the senior member for Halifax. Is that the meaning of his resolution? If it is, my hon. friend from Halifax will vote for it; if it is not, can he vote for it? There ought to be some finality about this, or a vote may go astray. To some members of Parliament it does not matter much whether a vote goes astray or not, but for either the leader of the Opposition or my hon. friend

from Halifax to have a vote go astray is a matter of some importance. Will these two gentlemen please settle between themselves what is the meaning of the word " confidential " and so inform us? We shall gain a vote or we shall lose a vote according as there is agreement or otherwise between them.
Let us look at it a little further. Two kinds of confidential documents are envisaged by my hon. friend; not all confidential documents are to be withheld by the Government, but only that division of confidential documents which it would be against the public interest to bring down. All other confidential ones are to be brought down. We must keep that ih mind: only those documents are to be refused the production of which would not be in the public interest. In a word, "confidential" having its general meaning and its special meaning, if the amendment is carried and becomes imperative, you will leave as it is now, in the discretion of the Government, the decision in all special cases whether a paper or document may or may not in the public interest be brought down, and you will have a standing battle between the Government and the Opposition or the seeker of the information on the question whether the Government is right in its interpretation or whether it is assuming autocratic or plenary powers and exercising great liberty in the production of information asked for. What I want to make plain is this: if the leader of the Opposition confines himself to confidential documents you will have to proceed then upon the division, first, into confidential documents the bringing down of which would not be prejudicial to the public interest and, second, confidential documents the bringing down of which would be prejudicial to the public interest. How will my hon. friend find those confidential documents? In a government department you find them easily. The minister or officer who indites a document or a letter marks it "confidential" or does not so mark it; if he marks it "confidential" he puts a seal upon it and it remains in that category. But in the case of a person or a corporation or a railway company carrying on business, how many of the documents or letters, how much of the correspondence, how many of the 9 p.m. transactions, are initialled as confidential by the only one who can initial them as such? Not one per cent of them, I venture to say. So that if my hon. friend's amendment passes he will be able to ask for nearly every document, every

item of correspondence which exists in connection with the administration of a great railway. I think there is no getting away from that. Well, when it comes to that I think we are up against a very important problem.
My hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) got a little excited this afternoon, I think, and used naughty words

very naughty words for a man of his age and wisdom, but they got the better of him this afternoon, for a moment, and he used them. He used the word "autocracy" and threw it at us with very great vim and very great energy. He then used the "dark lantern" illustration, as if we were a band of professional burglars in this respect and were going around with dark lanterns looking for our neighbours' goods to appropriate them to our own advantage. There is no need of using hard words when you come to the contemplation or discussion of a question as important as this. But the fact that they were used just illustrates! my objection of a few moments ago that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) got off the broad road of facing a great situation and discussing it in a cool and deliberate manner, and got on to the little, narrow road, not the narrow road which the Bible deals with, but the little, narrow road which is known to party politics, and he slid along it with more than his accustomed celerity and quickness. He would not have used those words if he had come up to the discussion of the question in a broad general way. But the words "autocracy" and "dark lantern" do not lend weight to an argument; they rather mark a divergence from the path along which you proceed to a reasoned and cool discussion of a subject, to the narrow path of which I spoke where you approach the subject from traditions of partyism and from tendencies towards partyism.
But that is not the way in which we will settle this question. My hon. friend compared a public department with the operations of a great railway system under corporate management. My hon. friend, if he comes to think of that for a minute, will see that there is no parallel between those two. The Department of Public Works is not in competition with any other agencies, private or corporate or public, along the same line of work. I.t receives a certain amount of money from this House; it has indicated what it wants that money for; it is for the public service, and this House has a right to the last dollar to have an
explanation of that expenditure, and the Public Works Department within its own domain, is engaged simply upon the outlined, delineated public services which this House authorizes it to carry on. How the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's could, for a moment, be led into the assertion that there was a parallel between the Department of Public Works and a great piece of enginery for the administration of eighteen or twenty thousand miles of railway in this country, I cannot understand; but the House can easily see that those are not parallel. While I agree with him up to the last in his assertion that the House has a right to have a full explanation of all those departmental expenditures, and that it must have them; when it comes to the other point, there are big interests upon which we have embarked; we have made a decision, that after these roads came to us-and they came to us; they pressed themselves upon us; they were taken in hand-they should not be carried on by government agency; that they should be in the form of corporate management, and we thereby divested ourselves of their direct management. Someone, with the usual lack of thought which the best of us sometimes may suffer from, has made the assertion that this great system of railways, as it exists today, is nothing more nor less than a party political machine. I am quite sure that the horn member who made that assertion did not quite think how far it went. Is it a party political machine? Has it been so used? Is it a hot-bed of patronage? I quite understand what patronage means, and I have my friends behind me-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank S. Cahill: 24,000 census enumera-. tors.


George Green Foster: The very mention of the word "patronage" puts joy on the faces of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Mr. COPP:: We like to hear the admission.


George Green Foster: When we refer to patronage, oh, joy, joy!-hon. gentlemen opposite are thinking of the time when they will hold the reins of power. That is why we hear such cheers and clapping from the other side of the House whenever the word "patronage" is used. It is like a sweet morsel that they roll under the tongue, of infinite gratification tq them. Do they want to come in and have its trials



as well as its joys? I know what patronage means.	-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Green Foster: From the time that the Intercolonial and the Canadian Northern shortly afterwards went out from the line of patronage, I have seen, and I have lived partly, in a different atmosphere. From the time that the new organization took hold, although I have been sometimes asked to get this man and that man and the other man a place within the administrative staff of that railway, I have never succeeded in doing so and I have never attempted to do so. There is no man, either outside of the ranks of those administrative officers or inside of them, that can controvert that statement with reference to myself. What does that prove? It proves that the Government, having laid down its policy, divested itself from the patronage in connection with the railways and held the management liable for the administration, the appointment of its staff, the promotion of its men and the general working out of the system. I have never interfered, and I think what is the fact as stated by myself would be the fact as stated by my colleagues as well. I will tell the House what I have heard. I have heard a good many pretty bitter remonstrances that in the old times it was possible to apply to a minister and get a man into a position, but now since the administration has been changed, that period has passed away and no one can seemingly get in by that path. But for a man to make in this House the statement that the whole of it is simply under a political patronage system and being run in that way, marks him, I am afraid, as a little bit thoughtless or a little bit reckless, whichever he may take as being the softest epithet to apply to himself.
I think I have stated all that it is necessary for me to state. There is but one thing more, and this bears out what the right hon. gentleman who leads the party has stated. I think that we members of Parliament, on both sides of the House should get as closely together and as quickly together as we possibly can, and try to find a solution for the situation which lies immediately in front of us. I think our reputation as members of Parliament depends upon that. I think that the country is looking to see Parliament come to some solution of that kind. They send their representatives to Parliament, those representatives are paid their emolument in Par- .
DSir George Foster.]
liament, and are supposed to do their duty in Parliament, and I submit that it is the duty of this Parliament and suceeeeding Parliaments to let bygones be bygones and partyism be partyism in the past, to be resumed in some dim and distant day in the future, if it is ever resumed, and for the time being to approach at least this one question with a sincere desire not to bother any one, but to get at the roots of the question-better still, to get at some sensible, sane method for solving the problem. We will not solve it by declamation nor by chucking words one at the other, whether it be "dark lanterns," "autocrats" or anything of that kind. We have enough brain, good will, and business ability in this Parliament to settle upon a solution which, though it must be gradual, will be effectual and pull us out. I agree with the sentiment uttered by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark). I am not pessimistic enough to think that Canada, with her future prospects, cannot draw herself out from this difficult railway situation of today and, with courage, persistence, and hopefulness, carry on and carry through for one, two, three, maybe several years more, until the development of the country comes even with the splendid facilities of transport that we have provided for it, and when, as a consequence, the revenues of these roads will approach the supporting point and some day or other pass it and perhaps become feeders of our revenues. But we will not get to that situation without the most careful thought and without a union of effort mental and moral, of both parties and both sides of the House towards obtaining the solution of one of the most important questions that ever devolved upon a parliament.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria) :: I had not intended to take part in this debate, but the temptation to participate in a discussion which has been honoured by the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) taking a part in it. is perhaps a little too strong for me to resist. I wish to make a few observations on the motion before the House, and possibly a few remarks upon the speech which has just been made by the right hon. gentleman.
Ever since I have had anything to do with public speaking either in this House or out of it, I have always tried to cull some material from the speech of the man who. was talking against me, to use in my own speech. I have listened to the speech . of the right hon. gentleman with all the

attention I could bring to bear for material, but-and I say this with all respect-beyond hurling half a dozen dictionaries across the floor I know of nothing substantial that the right hon. gentleman has said. He was very much bothered about the definition of "confidential"; that word bothered him very much. He almost committed himself, however, to this, that if we on this side of the House agreed upon what " confidential " meant, and if it was the same as the amendment, possibly he would vote for it. I am prepared to tell the right hon. gentleman that those of us who have been in this House for the last sixteen or twenty years know what the practice of Liberal and Conservative governments have been in respect to withholding matters that they considered confidential, and bringing down matters that they did not deem confidential. In the seventeen years I have been in this House I never heard of a motion from either side, Liberal or Conservative, finding fault with any government or minister for having to refuse to bring down documents on the ground that they were confidential and that the bringing of them down was not in the best interest of the country. It was always left to the judgment of the minister and the Government as to whether or not they should be brought down. There might perhaps be a little fault finding but never within my memory has there been any motion censuring a government or minister for deeming such and such matters to be confidential.
There is not the slightest question about what is meant by this motion. The motion allows for the exercise of discretion on the part of the Government as to what shall be deemed confidential, and therefore to be withheld. That certainly was the purpose of the language of the motion; otherwise, it would have had no meaning at all. I absolutely agree with the definition given by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), who called upon the leader of the Opposition to correct him if he did not agree with him. There was no correction and the hon. gentleman went on with his speech. Consequently, I submit to the right hon. gentleman that the leader of the Opposition agreed with the position taken by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) and that the amendment as put forward bears the meaning and intent which the senior member for Halifax puts upon it. That being the case, I will call upon the right hon. gentleman to support this amendment, and to
advise his friends to support it, because according to the view I take, it is left largely, if not altogether, to the Government as to what shall and shall not be brought down.
The attitude that some wise men take is peculiar. The right hon. gentleman says that this amendment is premature. He says that we should not move this amendment until we have the information. Suppose we had not moved it until we had information. Then he would have said we were ridiculous for moving for information which we then possessed. What shall we do with gentlemen of that kind? We are moving for this information at the psychological moment, as my right hon. friend would say. How could we move for information of this kind except on a motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply? What is the object of this rule, which obtains both in Great Britain and here, that there must be a motion made before Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply? This House goes into Committee of the Whole on public and private Bills and a host of other Bills, but it is only in the case of the House going into Committee of Supply that a motion must be made that the Speaker do leave the Chair. Why is that? Because the Government are coming to the House and asking for the expenditure of the people's money, and it is the right of the House to say whether or not they have put themselves in such a position as justifies the granting of that money. Now, the idea of this amendment is that the whole circumstances in connection with the expenditure of moneys in the Railway Department shall be thrashed out. I am here representing a certain number of people, and when I go back to my constituency, they will naturally be anxious to know something about this $70,000,000 deficit in connection with the Government Railways. I shall say that I do not know, that we were just told there was a lump sum, and, having asked the Prime Minister for information, were informed that it was not in the interests of the country that we should have that information, the railways being under the control of some incorporated company, and that we should therefore refrain from asking anything about them. Well-this is what my constituents will say-did you ask anyone else for information? Yes, I will reply; we asked the Minister of Railways, but he just parroted out the same words as uttered by the Prime Minister, to the effect that it was not in

the public welfare that the people should be told anything about the railways. My electors, if we did not introduce such an amendment as this, would then want to know why we voted for the expenditure of these moneys in the blind way in which this House is called upon to do. Why should the House be expected to play "blind man's buff" in matters of this kind? Why, Sir, seventy or eighty millions of the people's money is at stake, and we desire to be able to tell the electors that we did all we could to induce the Government to submit the facts, dividing the House upon the question, even though there might be a majority on the other side to vote us down. This is the kind of Government we have to-day, in the face of the situation with which we now have to deal; and my right hon. friend finds fault with the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), because that gentleman in his opinion, uses strong words! I do not quite understand this Sunday school simplicity of my right hon. friend.


George Green Foster: A simple mind.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: From the superficial knowledge which we can gather of this Government, it is not only hard words that they need. They need that instrument which a better man than the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's made use of; someone should take hold of the cord and whip them out of their seats. That is what should be done, and my right hon. friend should be thankful that he has not been brought into contact with some more material, more drastic and more painful instrument of persuasion than mere words and allusions to dark lanterns. Now, we are told by the Prime Minister, in his most solicitous and attractive tones, that he is very anxious to give us information. He wants to tell us everything about the expenditure of moneys in connection with the railways, but the Department of Railways is not to be trusted; we cannot get it through that department. But, he says, the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has found a remedy for all these evils; he is going to appoint another fifth wheel to the coach and add to the many standing committees we have now. He is going to appoint a standing committee before which-says my right hon. friend-you shall go and drink in abundantly all the information you require to your heart's content, and the public will know nothing about the matter. Did anyone ever hear a more childish proposition than that? I have been attending committees in this House for the last

17 or 18 years, and, Mr. Speaker, I never saw a committee sitting behind closed doors. I never saw a committee on any business of importance where we did not have, rail-birds all around us, representing every newspaper in' the country, gobbling up every sentence worth hearing. Does the right hon. gentleman think that when this great carcase is produced and thrown into open daylight, these same rail-birds will not again be on the scene? I think he is presuming too much if he thinks that their curiosity is so satiated with the deliverance of the Minister of Railways that they wil' not be on the qui vive. for further trade. My belief is that they will, and, as the immortal Burns puts it, if they get any in. formation, they will "prent it," and the country will know exactly what this great concern is doing.
If we are to have information, why not let us get it through the proper channel? I submit that the Department of Railways is the legitimate, proper and constitutional source from which to get information about every dollar of money expended in connection with the railways in this country. Neither I, nor the members supporting the Government, nor any other member of this House, should be charged with the responsibility of chasing around after witnesses outside of this House in order to get information. We are maintaining a department of railways with a large staff. If that staff is not adequate in order to supply this House with such information as is absolutely necessary, I am willing to accord them whatever assistance they require to obtain that information so that we may have it in the constitutional way, from the mouth of the responsible minister at the head of the department.
The floor of Parliament is the place to inquire for and obtain information concerning every department, for the benefit of the people. That is the position we take, and I think it can be supported before any intelligent audience, either in this House or outside. I am very much surprised that any earnest, intelligent member of this House should think of voting against the amendment. We have in this country nineteen or twenty different departments, every one of them a spending body. The right hon. gentleman said there was no legitimate comparison in the matter of expenditures between the Department of Railways and Department of Public Works. But, Mr. Speaker, is it not entirely a question of degree? One spends more money than the other, undoubtedly, but they both

spend money. If one spends ten millions and the other three hundred millions, are we not just as much entitled to information in the latter case as in the former? If the people of the country are entitled to know what moneys are expended in the Public Works Department, are they not, logically, equally entitled to be informed as to the expenditures in connection with the Department of Railways? I urge these arguments upon all sane men in this House representing the people. We have the following departments: Public Works, Militia and Defence, Marine and Fisheries and Naval Affairs, Interior, Agriculture, Immigration and Colonization, Finance, Mines, Justice, Labour, Post Office, Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, Customs, Trade and Commerce, the Department of the Secretary of State, the Department of the Solicitor General, the Department of External Affairs, and the Railway Department. There we have seventeen departments apart from the railways. Now, this amendment says that we are entitled to get an accounting of every dollar spent in every department in connection with the Government. Suppose we leave out the Railway Department, we say, in effect, if this amendment is not adopted, that in connection with seventeen departments, spending millions of money, we are not entitled to any information; and I gather from the attitude of the right hon. gentleman and those supporting the Prime Minister, that they contend, and will so vote, that we should have no accounting at all from any of these departments. When the members supporting the Government go back to their constituencies they will be questioned about the expenditures in the different public departments, and they will be asked "Did you vote that the House should have the information asked for?" They will have to reply truthfully "No, we voted against the amendment of the leader of the Opposition," and the people then will realize that they are not to have any information at all as to these matters.


Mr. BUTTS:: I would like to know
whether or not my hon. friend is arguing for a reduction in the workingmen's pay?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not think my hon. friend could have been in the House when the amendment was read, or he would fully understand that it has nothing whatever to do with the increase or reduction of the workingmen's pay. When my hon. friend reads the amendment itself he will find that my version of it is absolutely correct. Now, Sir, I pointed out that we
have this large amount of money to spend in nineteen or twenty departments, and we have hon. gentlemen sitting in this House, and we have a Government who tell us that we are not to have any information whatever about that expenditure except what the Government, in their graciousness and good nature, may possibly bring down. We are to be something like the woman who said that she would be perfectly satisfied by feeding on the crumbs that fell from the table of her lord. We are therefore to recognize the right hon. gentleman who has just addressed the House, and his confreres in the Government, as lords of that type. We must sit down at their feet and wait for some little crumb of information to be thrown to us which they may regard as worthy of our acceptance. That is the attitude taken by the Government, and that is the position in which we are placed.
I am astonished and surprised at the stand taken by my good friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) who has come to us in this country, from the very feet of Gamaliel and who is telling us occasionally, and almost all the time, that he imbibed his Liberalism from the great Gladstone himself. Now if there is anything that Gladstone taught more strongly than another it was the principle of the people ruling and governing, of the people being placed in full possession of every item of information that was necessary for the proper carrying on of the business of the country. I am surprised, therefore, that my hon. friend should lay himself open to the chage of sinning against the light; that he should come here evidently prepared to cast in his lot with the scribes and pharisees on the other side of the House who are willing to shut out every particle of information from Parliament. I think we have demonstrated beyond all question, Sir, that we are entitled to proper information about the moneys that have already been spent, and the moneys that are to be spent in the current year. What becomes of the argument that secrecy must prevail about the business of this Government? We are satisfied to get the information that is to be found in the Auditor General's Report with respect to every department, and we should not expect to go any further. That report deals with business that has been done and finished with nearly a year ago. Is this secrecy to last forever? If railway ties or locomotives have been bought and paid for, if millions have been spent on betterments for the

national railways, and the transactions are finished and closed, surely the information with respect to them can be brought down to Parliament? Could anything be more absurd than to say that the policy of secrecy and exclusiveness is to last forever, and that after a transaction is closed and everything with respect to it is done, we in this House cannot find out how it was carried out and what has become of our money? Surely, as I have already said, what is true about accounts that we find in the Auditor General's Report should also be true, and the same practice followed in connection with the Department of Railways.
I lay down the principle, and I am not laying down aything new, when I say in regard to every department of Government that we cannot in this House depart from the principle of ministerial responsibility to the extent of one inch. We cannot do it; there is no safe ground outside a firm maintenance of that principle. The moment you abandon the principle of the responsibility of ministers in connection with the expenditure of public money you have no safe ground upon which to stand, and the people are deprived of responsible government in this country. The moment you switch the responsibility for all kinds of expenditures to any corporation, or any body of men, who are not called upon to come before Parliament and, through the proper channels, explain the situation in which they stand and the way in which they have expended public money, that is the situation with which you are faced. The Government is not simply coming to us to-day to make good the amount of $70,000,000, although that itself is a very large amount. Somebody, during the debate, spoke about it as being more than the entire expenditure of the Dominion of Canada some twelve or thirteen years ago. When the right hon. gentleman, who a short time ago was Prime Minister of Canada, issued his manifesto in 1911 he told the people that the expenditure of eighty-seven millions of money was in itself evidence of recklessness and corruption-that it evidenced that money had been mis-spent in this country. We are close to that amount to-day in the deficit in one department of Government, and yet we are told that we must shut our mouths and have nothing to say about it. What would my right hon. friend say if things were reversed, and he was standing on this side of the House and supporting the present amendment? There would then be no dic-

tionaries thrown around; the missiles would be hard rocks and they would be hurled at us in such a way that the life of nobody in our ranks would be safe. But now the right hon. gentleman is suave and calm and finds fault with any man who writes his name in black letters on white paper because it might look like "a dark lantern," or something which reflected on the character of the saintly gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches. Not only are we asked to make good this sum of $70,000,000, but any person who looks at pages 34, 35 and 36 of the Estimates will find that in connection with railways alone we are called upon to vote in the vicinity of $165,000,000, which money will have to come out of the hard earned wages of the poor people of this country. Yet we are to sit here and accept the general statement of, the Minister of Railways, which gives us no information at all upon which a right conclusion could be reached. Finally, let me say that we are asking for nothing but what is fair and reasonable when we demand that Parliament and the people be given the fullest possible information about expenditures in every department, including the Department of Railways.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Will my hon. friend allow me just one question? Who are the members of the dark-lantern brigade?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I was paired with
the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Hon. Mr. MEWBURN:: I was paired
with the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	[DOT]
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Trade and Commerce-Salaries, J371.612.50 ; contingencies, $22,000.
Frank S. Cahill: Before the minister explains this item I wish to ask the Government if it is their intention, if this item passes, to go into Supply on any other department.


Arthur Meighen: I am not aware of any reason why the question should be specially answered. The Government intends to go on with Supply according to the announcement of last night-such Supply as we can reach within a reasonable time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then my hon. friend intends to proceed with the Estimates of another department?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Frank S. Cahill: I want to get an answer to my question because I understand it has been customary in this House, at least since I have been here, for one item to be taken at a time-I mean, one department -unless with the consent of the Opposition. If my hon. friend wishes to follow out the contention he made the other day that he has the right to go into Supply in any department, he may mention one day, all the departments and then the next day go into all departments, taking one item at a time, thus preventing the Opposition from proposing any resolution on the motion to go into Supply. It is not fair; if the attitude taken by the Government

on the first items of Supply is to be followed out and it is their intention to take up two or three items in one night on one motion to go into Supply, the only protection the Opposition has is to prevent the Government from passing the first item% of Supply until they tell us how many items, or how many departments they wish to go into at the one sitting.


Arthur Meighen: I think I see the point the hon. member has in mind. He has not expressed himself, though, correctly; he says "items" when he means "departments." Certainly we intend to pass such items as the committee feel they can fairly consider. As to the departments, I see the point the hon. member has in mind; it is that if we take up more than one department to-night we are permitted on Thursdays and Fridays to enter those departments without the consent which the rules call for. That he wishes to avoid, and I can see that there is some fairness in the contention. I would think a fair interpretation would be this: if hon. gentlemen opposite will advise us that they desire to move a general resolution against any department, I 'think it would only be fair on our side that we should not go into that department except on a day specially appointed so that the resolution could be moved. On the other hand I do not think it is right that the Government . should deny itself the privilege of going into more than one department on the same day; otherwise, I do not see how we are going to get on with the Estimates; the House will be delayed too long. The rules of the House permit it. If on Tuesday-for quite a time-the only day available for that purpose-we take only one department at a sitting we shall be going into only one department per week, and if we do that the session will be insufferably long. We have no desire in the world to avoid a motion in amendment on going into Supply if the Opposition wish to challenge any department in that way, and if they will name the particular department they wish to challenge we shall see that a motion to go into Supply, directed chiefly to that department, is made. That seems to me to be fair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may point out to my right hon. friend that we may wish to discuss other matters than simply those relating to one department. There are a good many subjects we would like to discuss on going into Supply. My right hon. friend knows that he can cut us off in the matter of discussion by passing from
	.
one department to another in the same night. What we are trying to reserve to ourselves is the right of discussion, not to be cut off in discussion as we have been cut off this afternoon, for example, in the matter ot information. My right hon. friend was hardly fair to the member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) when he intimated that the hon. gentleman had not expressed himself in a way that could be appreciated. I put the question specifically to my right hon. friend as to departments and he answered that he intended to go into other departments if possible. Why does he say to my hon. friend who has just spoken that he has not presented the matter intelligently?


Arthur Meighen: Because he mentioned
items instead of departments and items do not mean departments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mentioned
departinents.


Arthur Meighen: I know my hon. friend
did, and I expressed the intention of the Government. But I do not intend to exercise that intention against the right of the Opposition to challenge a department. I think that is as fair as any government can possibly be. I do not know that the Government is bound to be giving opportunities all the time, aside from the rules of the House, to the Opposition to talk about anything at all. But I do think it is fair on the part of the Government to afford opportunities to the Opposition to challenge any department, notwithstanding that we have full power under the rules to pass from one department to another. I can see that we could abuse that power, but I do not intend to do so. But surely we are fair in saying that if the Opposition will only name the department or departments that they purpose moving resolutions against, we are ready to give them an opportunity to do so by going into Supply on the department concerned. I do not think any government has ever gone that far; I am pretty sure no government will ever go further.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why should
we be confined to the departments?


Arthur Meighen: That is the purpose
of the saving clause in the rules providing that we may not go into Supply on Thursday or Friday save on some department that we have been on before-so that in relation to that department a motion can be made: We do not intend to violate either the letter or the spirit of the rule.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We might
wish to discuss the civil service, for example, which is not a department. Why should we not have that right?


Arthur Meighen: It can be done; there
is nothing to prevent it.


John Allister Currie: I suggest that this whole
discussion is out of order. It is purely hypothetical.


Jacques Bureau: The discussion is not out of order. I raised the point the other night when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) wanted to call the estimates for his department. What we wanted to avoid was being debarred from making a motion against that particular department simply because it had been called on that particular night. Just about the time-1 raised the point the Prime Minister left the chamber and I suggested to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) that there be some understanding in the matter. During the twenty years that I have been here it has always been the rule that just before the House rose, the Prime Minister or the minister leading the House would tell the Opposition what particular business and the Estimates of what particular department would be taken up the next day. On the night before, the Prime Minister had said:	" Any department which the
Government might see fit to take up " or something to that effect. I have not the exact words, but it was repeated the next day, and I called it vague. I thought it was an answer that we did not deserve; that it was an answer that lacked courtesy. I stated at that time that, as a matter of courtesy, it had always been the rule of this House that the Opposition be informed of the work to be taken up the next day, and that the answer of the Prime Minister left the door open by him to taking up, during the discussion of Supply in Committee as to-night, items of the Estimates of more than one department thus debarring the Opposition from making a motion on Thursdays and Fridays.


John Allister Currie: I again ask for a ruling that this discussion is out of order. No question is now before the Committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Allister Currie: I ask for your ruling,
Mr. Chairman. We are night after night discussing the same question, and under this item a discussion of this question is out of order.


Jacques Bureau: May I correct a statement I made?


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) has risen to a point of order. If the hon. gentleman desires to say anything on the point of order, I would be glad to hear him.


John Allister Currie: I will speak to the point
of order. For several nights, this House has been entertained with a discussion on this question, which is purely hypothetical. If the Prime Minister makes a motion to go into Supply required by another department the question might properly arise; but that question is not before us now at all, and a discussion of that question is altogether irrelevant to the matter which is before us and which is an item of supply. As regards the matter of discussing what is to come before us, I have sat in this House for a long time, and I have listened to the right hon. gentleman who led the House previously and also to the present hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) discussing this very question. I notice that when the answer was given to the question, the leader of the Government of the day did not confine himself to one department; that many times as many as four departments were mentioned, and then followed the statement " any other matters that might come before the House." Apart from that altogether, I claim that a discussion of this kind is purely hypothetical, and that there is before the committee nothing that we can discuss this question on.


Jacques Bureau: I want to correct what
I said just now. I said that we could not make a motion on Thursdays and Fridays. What I meant to say was that we could not discuss the point.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member is
not discussing the point of order.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend has
talked about past governments. All that I am saying now is in regard to what has happened within the past week.


John Allister Currie: We have heard enough.


Georges Henri Boivin: I would ask the hon.
member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) to remain within the rule and to speak to the point of order.


Jacques Bureau: According to your ruling, if this item passes, any minister may call an item of another department, and then on Thursdays and Fridays, we will go into their estimates automatically.


John Allister Currie: That is not the point of
order.


Jacques Bureau: That is the point of
order. There is nothing else before the Chair. I submit the point of order is not well taken.


Lucien Cannon: We have heard a military man explaining the law; I will try, as a lawyer, to discuss the point of order as I understand it. I understand, when the Government moves to go into Supply, the rule is-


Georges Henri Boivin: The point of order
now before the Chair is whether or not hon. gentlemen have a right to discuss the point of order to which the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) is about to refer.


Lucien Cannon: I was just going to explain that I have a right to discuss the point of order just mentioned, and I wish to discuss it. The point of order is whether we can be precluded by the Government from moving an amendment to the motion to go into Supply if items in connection with more than one department are discussed at one sitting. If this is not the point of order, I think it about time that the Chairman should explain to the committee what the point of order really is.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted, I should like to discuss the point of order. The question submitted to us seems to be this: Have we the right, before discussing the first item that has been submitted to this committee, to know beforehand from the Government whether or not they intend to proceed with the Estimates of any other department.
I am very glad, indeed, to have been able to find out what is the real question put before you. I think we have that right, in order to avoid such a misunderstanding as we had last week. It is important for the Opposition that this question be settled once for all. It is true that we are entitled, I believe, even after discussing a few Estimates of the various departments, to introduce resolutions on the motion for the House to go into Supply, barring Thursdays and Fridays, but we could not move concerning a particular department after the Estimates of that department had been previously considered.


Mr. MORPHY:: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member allow me a question?


Ernest Lapointe: Certainly.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What is the point of order?
[Mr. Currie. [


Ernest Lapointe: The point of order is to know-as I have stated previously- whether, before taking up the Estimates, we have the right to secure from the Government a statement to the elfect that they will not consider to-night the Estimates of any other department. I believe that the point of order raised by the hon. member from Simcoe (Mr. Currie) is not well taken and that we are entitled to proceed with that discussion.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) has risen to a point of order which has been fully discussed by the hon. members for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) and for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). The point of order raised by the hon. member for North Simcoe is whether or not any hon. member has the right to question the leader of the Govern-' ment concerning his intentions in regard to the passing of Estimates and the number of departments which are to be taken up at the present sitting. The question now before the Committee is item No. 21 which provides for the salaries and contingencies of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Strictly speaking, the point taken by the hon. member for North Simcoe is well taken, as the question asked is not relevant to that item. The Chairman would, however, hesitate to rule that a question concerning the conduct of the business of the Committee could not be asked at any time with a view to securing a better understanding between the two or three parties in the House, and thus expediting the business of Parliament. The question asked while it was not relevant, was a very reasonable one and the answer having been given, I will now ask hon. members to return to a discussion of the item under consideration.


Jacques Bureau: I notice an increase of about $9,000 in the item for salaries.


George Green Foster: The amount
asked for is $371,612.50 for salaries, and $22,000 for contingencies. The total number of employees provided for 1921-22, as will be seen by the details, is 278, for which the total annual salaries amount to $371,612.50. The original Estimates for 1920-21 provided for 221 employees at $291,089.50. To that there has been added by the transfer of 57 employes under P.C. 2958, $49,763. That Order in Council provided that permanent temporaries employed in the different departments who came in before a certain date, and whose services were efficient and satisfactory,
\
\ *
, MARCH 22, 1921	.	1219
should be put upon the permanent list by the Civil Service Commission. Instead of these transfers being carried by outside votes, they have been transferred to civil government. That accounts for $49,763. Then the reclassification raised the salaries to the amount of $20,862.50. Adding these together we get the Estimate for the coming year of $371,612.50. For 1921-22 the staff remains at 278 employees, exactly the same as it was before. The net amount required for salary increases is $9,897. So we have in the whole service exactly the same number of employees, the increases being due to transfers and reclassification.


Mr. VIEN:: What are the duties of the Director of Commercial Intelligence?


George Green Foster: The present
Director of Commercial Intelligence is one of the oldest and most experienced of our trade commisioners. He commenced service in South Africa, was afterwards in South America, and afterwards went to the war where he served two or three years. Then he was sent on a mission of inspection of trade commissionerships throughout the world. He has now taken the position of Director of Commercial Intelligence Service. He has under him the whole staff of trade commissioners. He has also the direction of the whole staff of Commercial Intelligence, which includes instructions to our commissioners in different parts of the world, the reception of reports therefrom, their examination, their editing, their publication in the Weekly Bulletin, and all the correspondence with business men in Canada who have more or less trade in connection with these different countries in which our trade commissioners exercise their functions. He is, in fact, the head of that very large and important branch.


Mr. JACOBS:: Where is he now?


George Green Foster: In the office
here in Ottawa. He has returned from his visit of inspection. He was promoted to his present office after competition.


Samuel William Jacobs: How many trade commissioners are there altogether?


George Green Foster: I could answer that more fully on a more appropriate item, but I might say we have between twenty and thirty trade commissioners.


Thomas Vien: Has the Director of Commercial Intelligence the duty of organizing trade agencies abroad? Does he advise the minister on the organization of such agencies?


George Green Foster: Absolutely so.


Thomas Vien: Has he recommended any trade mission or agency in the United States?


George Green Foster: No.


Thomas Vien: Has he studied that question?


George Green Foster: Perhaps I
might give my hon. friend a short statement which would bring that matter up in a better way. We have not as a policy instituted trade commissionerships in the United States. We have none there now; we never have had.


Thomas Vien: Why?


George Green Foster: Before the war, I commenced to study with my officers the question of the advisability of extending the service to the United States and considerable progress was made in the examination of the whole question. The war, however, intervened and it was not carried through. After the armistice I took up the question again, and since then the matter has been pretty thoroughly examined. We have not as yet adopted the policy of extending our trade commissionerships, to the United States, but the matter is now under consideration, and I hope we shall arrive at a decision in respect to it before the close of this session, because if it is decided to extend them to the United States we shall have to have legislation providing therefor.


Samuel William Jacobs: I would suggest that
they be called "truck-and-trade" commissioners.


George Green Foster: My own view from the first has been that there was not the same necessity for a system of trade commissioners in the United States as in more distant countries. The United States lying alongside of Canada for a distance of 3,000 or 4,000 miles, having the most intimate relations both as regards our resources and the demand and supply of both countries, with the best facilities for quick travel to and fro, with an intimate knowledge of markets and market possibilities, with the numerous interminglings commercial and otherwise between the United States and Canada, the knowledge that existed was so much greater and so much more widely distributed with reference to the United States than to other countries that there was not the same necessity for trade commissioners. Besides,

we have taken up this matter of trade commissioners in a gradual way, and the expenses in connection therewith are, of course, proportionate to the distribution. If we undertook to put commercial agents in the United States, it would be very difficult to avoid placing a large number of them there. The United States covers a wide territory, and our commercial activities extend from one coast to the other, and from the forty-ninth degree down to the southern limit of the country. All these considerations have contributed to delay and have been the reasons why the department, under former governments as under the Government of the present day, has not thought fit to extend the system to the United States.


Thomas Vien: I do not wish to be-


Sir GEORGE  POSTER@: Perhaps the
hon. gentleman will allow me to interrupt him. I might say to him that if we agree to bring up these matters when we come to the votes for them, I think we should he able to expedite the business of the committee.


Thomas Vien: I beg to remind my right hon. friend that I am strictly within the purview of the vote.


George Green Foster: I am not raising any question as to my hon. friend's right to put questions, and I will answer him. I am, however, just suggesting that we proceed from item to item in an orderly way. I have an item of two or three hundred thousand dollars for trade commis-sionerships and trade extension, and in connection with that, I think we can discuss to better advantage the matter which my hon. friend is now dealing with. I just put that to my hon. friend.


Thomas Vien: I put a question to the minister a moment ago: Has the Director of Commercial Intelligence the duty of recommending to the minister the organization of trade commissions abroad? The right hon. gentleman said; yes. Then I put another question: Has the minister received any suggestion from'that official as to the establishment of trade commissions in the United States? The minister replied in the negative. He said: No, he has made no such suggestion, but I have myself, with the assistance of my expert on that question, studied the matter, and thus far, owing to the war and other prevailing conditions, we have not deemed it advisable to establish such trade commissions in

the United States. Now, I say that the item which is now before the committee is a proper one in connection with which to discuss the policy of establishing trade commissions in the United States, because according to the answer given by the minister, it is within the scope of the duties of the Director of Commercial Intelligence to suggest such organizations and appointments. I must offer to the minister a humble suggestion, not in the way of drastic or destructive criticism, but for the purpose of assisting him. He is of opinion that the time is not opportune to establish trade commissions in the United States; but that time may arrive before this session is very much older, and then it will mean a vote of a large amount of money to provide for such commissions.


John Allister Currie: May I ask the hon. member what he means by "trade commission"? I fail to grasp his meaning, although I have been waiting patiently to gather the significance 6f his remarks.


Thomas Vien: A trade commission is an institution, and the trade commissioner is the officer who discharges the duties appertaining to that commission.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Listen and learn something.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend no doubt
receives the weekly bulletins issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and he should know what a trade commission is, and what are the duties of a trade commissioner. By the way, may I congratulate the Department of Trade and Commerce on the publication of these weekly bulletins, which are extremely interesting and which should be of value to the trade and commerce of Canada generally. Unfortunately, in my opinion at any rate, they are circumscribed in their application, because we have no trade commissioners in some parts of the world where we should have them. The minister says that up to the present time there has been no necessity for them in the United States. On the contrary, I contend that we should have had them there for some time past. Our proximity to the United States is absolutely immaterial to the question which we are now studying. The purpose of establishing trade commissions, and appointing trade commissioners in the United States, is to open new markets in that country for Canadian industries. The situation is not

affected by any question of space, for the same distance separates us from each other. Yet the American Republic have consuls in Canada, being represented in almost every town. What are these commissioners doing in Canada?-because these American consuls accomplish here what our trade commissioners do abroad. They collect information as to the openings that exist in Canada for their manufactures, and they send that information to their State Department and keep their industries posted on opportunities that offer in Canada. The right hon. gentleman says we need not have any trade commissions in the United States because of our proximity thereto.


George Green Foster: Perhaps it
might be of some importance to say that I did not say that.


Thomas Vien: That is what I understood.


George Green Foster: Then my hon. friend went further than my words would warrant. What I did say was that up to the present time none had been appointed. I did say also that under all administrations no appointments had been made, that I had taken the matter up before the war, hpd suspended it, and then took it up again after the armistice, and that it was now being very carefully looked into. I gave my own opinion as I viewed the matter in the light of the past. I then said that the government was considering the subject, and that their policy would be announced before the close of the session.


Thomas Vien: The right hon. gentleman
said that but he also said a minute ago that we were so close to the Republic to the south.


George Green Foster: I did and I said so because it was an argument why, to my mind-and it seems to have been an argument which commended itself to the department-as matters stood it was less necessary for us to have tra,de commissioners there than in other countries.


Thomas Vien: On the contrary to my mind it was much more imperative that we should have trade commissioners there.


George Green Foster: That is all right; my hon. friend has a perfect right to his opinion.


Thomas Vien: And it is a right which I am now exercising with due respect to the right hon. gentleman. To my mind it is more imperative to establish trade commissioners in the United States because we
trade more with that country. The American Republic did not hesitate, nothwith-standing the close proximity of the United States to Canada, to appoint American consuls here. What was the net result? The net result was that they have developed an export trade to Canada of nearly $900,000,000 a year. Our lack of organization has, to a great degree, prevented the expansion of our export trade to the United States. Such an organization would have been a great assistance in the development of Canadian trade with the United States. These trade agents, established in numerous centres of the American Republic, would have opened the eyes of the Trade and Commerce Department of the Dominion to the business openings which offered to Canadian manufacturers, and in turn that department could have kept our manufacturers posted with respect to those opportunities. Then we probably could have developed an export trade with the United States which would have offset, to a certain degree at least, the 'present adverse trade balance which is so injurious to the credit of Canada. I think, Sir, that the time has come, in fact it is long overdue, when we should pay closer attention to our relations with the United States with a view to developing our export trade to that country. That opinion must have been entertained by the present Government when they brought down legislation creating the position of Canadian Ambassador at Washington. When they did that they contended that the time had come when a Canadian representative should reside in Washington and look after Canadian interests. I do not share the opinion of the Government as to the method they then suggested. I think that our representative in Washington should by no means be linked up with the British Embassy. He should not be the vice-ambassador of the British Empire in Washington, he should be absolutely untrammeled and should represent Canadian interests exclusively: If we pay for a Canadian representative at Washington, or for Canadian trade agents in that country, it is only fair that they should work for Canada first. If we send a representative to Washington who will be attached to the British Embassy the results of his work will be compiled and will be available for the benefit of those in whose interest the British Embassy is established. We know that England does not send financial agents, or trade commissioners, or consuls, or consular agents, to the United States to produce a wider market for Can-

adian manufacturers. They are live wires, they look out for British manufacturers and they act wisely in so doing. If Canada wishes to develop her trade with the United States her duty is not to reply upon other representatives, whether they bd British consuls, vice-consuls, or consular agents. Canada should see to it that Canadians who have only Canadian interests at heart are appointed. They should work for Canada. They should not report to the British Ambassador, but report directly to our Minister of Trade and Commerce for the benefit of Canadian industries. Who could blame the British Embassy at Washington for collecting and sending to British manufacturing the information that the trade agents of England collect in the United States? Nobody could blame them; they are appointed for that very purpose and they are paid out of the British Exchequer. If we want to develop our export trade to the United States we should imitate England's example. We should not put our Canadian representative Under the guidance and control of the British Ambassador, but place him under the exclusive control of the Canadian Government. To my mind this is one of the steps which this Government should take and I humbly offer the suggestion to my right hon. friend, adding that in my opinion it was imperative to have done that long ago but more imperative than ever to-day.


John Allister Currie: I am very much interested in the remarks which have fallen from the hon. gentleman, and I would like to ask him a question before we pass from this topic. He is indulging in what he himself calls constructive criticism. Following that line I would ask him in what particular line of manufactures we could increase our export to the United States to a greater extent than we are now doing?


Thomas Vien: In all kinds of manufactures.


John Allister Currie: My hon. friend is merely speaking in general terms.


Thomas Vien: Let my hon. friend wait
a minute. We have in Canada a number of manufacturers, but what is the prevailing condition? Canada is a narrow strip of four thousand miles in length and only sparsely populated. We have in Quebec city, for example, a manufacturer of boots and shoes. What must he do to market his goods? He has to travel three thousand miles to find a mere handful of customers in Vancouver or Victoria. The closer he is to the consumer the better. Now across the international boundary

line, only fifty or one hundred miles away from his factory, there is a population of millions who could use the boots and shoes which he manufactures. There is a great market at his very door, but he has not trade commissioners to assist him in obtaining it. He has not developed that market, and yet boots and shoes enter the United States duty free. If instead of catering for a handful of customers in Victoria and the other cities of British Columbia he tried to organize his market to the south of the boundary line, although he would have to meet competition there, yet he would have equal chances with his American rivals, because he can produce just as cheaply as they can.


Mr. STEVENS:: May I ask my hon.
friend a question? Why could not that manufacturer send a traveller fifty or one hundred miles south, as my hon. friend suggests, just as easily as he could send him 3,000 miles west without a trade commissioner shepherding that traveller?


Thomas Vien: We are now discussing trade commissioners, and if the argument of my hon. friend is sound it would apply to our trade commissioners all over the world.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not necessarily.


Thomas Vien: We have trade commissioners in England, Holland, Denmark, France and other European countries. Why should not the Canadian manufacturers send their agents over there-as so many do-and dispense with our trade commissioners? That would be the argument of my hon. friend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not make an
argument; I simply asked a question of my hon. friend.


Thomas Vien: Make it a suggestion, then.
That suggestion of my hon. friend applies as well to the trade commissioners that we have already established in every country as to trade commissioners in America.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not at all.


Thomas Vien: The Department of Trade
and Commerce is established, not to supersede the activities of our manufacturers,
, but to help them out. And if it has been found a happy medium to develop our trade in other countries, why should it not be an equally happy medium to develop our trade in the United States, where we do such a great volume of business? That is the reason why I say that trade commissioners established in the United States would be able to give valuable assistance

to our manufacturers in developing export business there.


John Allister Currie: I have no desire to delay the item, and I regret very much that the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman (Sir George Foster) was not accepted in order that we might have a more thorough discussion of trade commissioners at a future date. Evidently the hon. gentleman who has just sat down is of the opinion that the business men and manufacturers of Canada are not wide awake to the American market.


Thomas Vien: That is quite true.


John Allister Currie: He is entirely mistaken.


Thomas Vien: You are correct.


John Allister Currie: If there is anything going on in the United States in the way of business, or if there is any market opening for any of the products of the factories of Canada, our manufacturers are quite ready to do business. In fact my hon. friend will find that the very item he has referred to- shoes-is exported to the United States by our manufacturers. The functions of the commissioners operating in the United States as compared with the functions of the American consuls are entirely different. The American consul gets information, but I never yet saw one in Canada shepherding a bunch of American commercial travellers through the country. If he did so we would very much resent it.


Thomas Vien: I may tell the hon. gentleman that I have come in contact with American consuls trying to help their manufacturers to find a market in Canada.


John Allister Currie: I must have been particularly unfortunate, for I have never seen any of them. The principal thing they do, so far as my knowledge of them goes, is simply to take a fee when you make an affidavit before them and draw big salaries. They are not functioning any more than the British ambassadors are in the way of finding markets. They supply information, of course, to their government, but they are not going around looking for orders.
Now, I will say this for the Department of Trade and Commerce: In my personal experience of world trade I can safely say that no finer lot of business men could be sent to foreign countries than have been sent by the department within the last four or five years. The Canadian manufacturers owe a deep debt of gratitude to the young men who have been sent, for instance, to China, India, Japan, Australia,
New Zealand and South America. They take great pains to establish connections with our manufacturers here and to instruct us as to what line of goods we can sell there to advantage, and millions of dollars worth of Canadian goods have been sold in those markets through the instrumentality of those men. Nothing more useful has been done for Canada in fifty years than the work these men have accomplished in the last five or six years, when we needed markets badly, and when the markets of the world were open to us because German and other foreign competition was withdrawn. The fact that Canadian factories have taken the place of the factories of the Entente and supplied millions of dollars worth of goods to those countries is largely due to those clever young men sent out by the Department of Trade and Commerce. I wish to bear testimony to the very effective work they have done, and to say that this country can do nothing that is too good for them. Of course, occasionally a square peg gets into a round hole, but that has not occurred very often recently, and the work of these commissioners must commend itself to every Canadian who has had anything to do with them.
Unfortunately, for the moment our trade with Australia and New Zealand, which had reached very large proportions, is now cut off, largely due to the fact that those two Dominions have no credits with Canada. I do not wish to trespass on the rules of the House, but I would suggest that the Government should seriously take into consideration the granting of credit to Australia and New Zealand so that that trade may be continued until such time as those two countries have reached the point where normal conditions might be said to have been re-established.


Thomas Vien: What is the nature of our
shipments to those countries?


John Allister Currie: All kinds of manufactured goods.


Mr. McMASTER:: That is general.


John Allister Currie: No, it is not general in
Australia, but I say that we have displaced Germany and England in the Australian market for most lines of manufactured goods. The depression, as the hon. gentleman has said, is general so far as those two Dominions are concerned, but that condition of affairs does not extend to China, India and Japan; their credit is ample here, and they can pay for anything ' they buy from us. Unfortunately, how-

ever, Australia and New Zealand have pot the funds now to pay for goods that they would very much like to purchase from us. They would buy millions of dollars worth of manufactured goods from us in the next five or six months if some form of credit was arranged whereby they could pay for those purchases.


Thomas Vien: In what particular lines?


John Allister Currie: Every line of manufactured goods-for instance, textiles and hardware. We have sold millions of dollars worth of hardware in Australia and New Zealand. They require all kinds of goods such as we use in the ordinary carrying on of business here, and which we manufacture. There is a good market for those goods in Australia and New Zealand, but we cannot fill that market at the present time.
I	might say also in the same connection that the Government must seriously take into consideration the question of export freight rates. If we are going to do business in those countries we must have lower freight charges. There is no use for our trade commissioners to go to those countries and get thousands of dollars' worth of business while our freight rates compare so unfavourably with the freight rates, for instance, from Philadelphia and from Pittsburg. The rate from Pittsburg to Hong Kong is now about $27, and the Canadian rate will run to $37. You cannot do business under those conditions. The last hoist given to Canadian freight rates has cut away all our foreign trade; the decline in Canada's foreign trade during the last three months is entirely due to that fact. It was freight rates that gave Germany the benefit of the markets of the world. A manufacturer in Munich would get a through freight rate to Smyrna just as a manufacturer in Hamburg could, and that rate was at least two-thirds less than from Liverpool or from London. If we are to maintain our foreign trade we must nurse it along. But I must bear testimony to the young men who have been employed by . this department as trade agents. From all quarters of the globe-Argentine, Brazil, South Africa-they send communications stating that so-and-so wants to sell certain lines of goods; that Canadian goods are known in that district and that an interchange of business is desired. Reverting to the United States, the question has been discussed of establishing Canadian 
chambers of commerce. It would be of vast benefit to this country if Canadian chambers of commerce could be established in all the large centres of the world. The offices set up in this connection would be a centre for all the Canadians carrying on business in a particular locality, a place in which our agents might have a desk when they went there, and where they could consult with the trade commissioner. I am satisfied that the foreign trade of Canada would be enormously increased if such chambers of commerce were established. As to the necessity for our having trade commissioners in the United States, I may point out that the Canadian manufacturers are wide awake to everything that is going on there, and, as the member for Red Deer would say, it would be sending coals to Newcastle to assume that we could carry on a greater trade than we are now carrying on with the United States in manufactured goods. Practically every line of business in Canada, with the exception of pulpwood and grain, is largely carried on in the United States and for that business there is a large foreign market as well as a large home market. If you go into their home market with your carloads of goods, reports will very quickly be sent to Washington of what you have been doing, and obstacles will be thrown in the way of your export trade.


Lucien Cannon: Would the hon. member recommend that we renew our trade with Russia and send our trade commissioners to that country?
M. CURRIE: I was not discussing Russia for the moment. I was emphasizing the point that the establishment of chambers of commerce in such large centres as New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco and other places of that kind would result in our buyers going to these points and also in an increase of our sales. Now, with reference to an extension of our trade with Russia-


George Green Foster: May I prevail upon my hon. friends on both sides to leave these big questions until we come to the big votes and to get through some of these smaller things first?


John Allister Currie: I agree with the minister, but as these matters are sometimes brought up without some of us being able to discuss them, I am endeavouring to entertain my hon. friends opposite with a

few remarks on the subject so that when the matter comes up again they will have a greater knowledge of it and will he able to discuss it intelligently.


Mr. ROBB:: We have done a reasonable day's work and perhaps at this late hour we might make some progress and adjourn. I am sure that the minister would prefer being comfortably at home to sitting here discussing these items.


George Green Foster: I am ready to sacrifice myself on the altar of my country for a few hours.


James Alexander Robb: So far as the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) advances the idea that we should have trade agents in overseas countries, I am with him. I think that trade agents in overseas countries and a much better display than we have now of Canadian products in the cities of the British Isles might be of great advantage to Canada. But so far as establishing a number of paid agents in the United States is concerned, it seems to me that having regard to the present financial position of our country there is much to be done before we undertake a work of such questionable value. Now, I am satisfied that the shoe manufacturers of the city of Quebec have their travellers on the road out as far as British Columbia, a point much more distant than the larger markets of the United States. If they are able to send travellers out to British Columbia to look for business I am sure that these manufacturers or any other manufacturers in Canada would rather trust to their own trained help than to a government agent of doubtful business capacity. The business men of this country are just as able to go out and look for business in the United States as they are to go out and look for it in British Columbia and the western provinces, and I am satisfied that they can do it with greater advantage to themselves and to Canada than a government official can. For these reasons I am not prepared to follow the member for Lotbiniere in his argument in favour of trade agents in the United States. I do think, however, that any money spent in the display of Canadian goods in overseas countries will produce profitable returns and I shall be willing to support the minister in any appropriation that he may require for that purpose.


Mr. PARENT:: The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) has stated that Canada has an export trade in shoes. Would he state what particular brand of shoes
are being exported to the United States, what their trade-mark is, and where they are manufactured?


John Allister Currie: I have no idea what their trade-mark is. All I know is that the United States trade returns two or three years ago showed quite an import trade in shoes from Canada.


Georges Parent: The Slater shoe was exported for a while, that is all.


Lucien Cannon: I see in the details concerning this appropriation certain items with respect to motion pictures and officials connected with that branch of the department. The right hon. gentleman went to Paris last year and I think he was there the year before as well. During his stay in the capital city of France, he probably acquired very artistic tastes. I notice, for instance, that amongst the officials of the department is an artist who is receiving a rather good salary. Who is this artist, how are his or her services hired, and what are exactly his or her duties in the department.


Georges Parent: Would the minister, at the same time, kindly give an explanation regarding the Director of Commercial Exhibits?


George Green Foster: It will be
quite within the knowledge of members of Parliament that for the last three or four years, the Department of Trade and Commerce has been availing itself of films as a means of educating and informing the people of other countries of the resources of Canada, what we produce, the processes of production, and certain scenic qualities of the country as well, all going to make up a propaganda of film production and exhibition. This has enlarged from year to year, and it has proved one of the most profitable investments that we have made; as being one of the most appealing methods of distributing information amongst large bodies of people. In that work, we have developed a staff which is of excellent ability and which turns out work which, I think, is not surpassed by any company or aggregation that works along those lines. You must have, in the taking of those negatives, an artist who is able to pose the situation, so to speak, so as to get your results, if it is a scenic effect, from the best possible angles, so as to produce the most catching and attractive form of what you are producing. That explains what the artist is for. He is not a painter of pictures, nor



anything of that kind. How we obtain him is through the Civil Service Commission by advertising the nature of the work and then selecting from those who apply the one who appears to be best fitted for that work. We had, as our chief director, Mr. Norrish, for two or three years. We lost him about a year ago, or a little less, because he was taken from us by the Canadian Pacific for exactly the same kind of work, but at a much larger salary than we were able to give him. _ There is, therefore, a staff which is employed in taking those negatives, in developing them afterwards and in distributing them. As to the distribution, I am sorry I have to take this on an item of an officer rather than when we come to the main vote for this work. Perhaps the information which I have given now will do for this particular thing, because when we come to that item, I should like to deal with it a little more at length, so that the House may know what we are doing along that line.


Thomas Vien: We were told by the Chairman that the details of the appropriation which is now before the committee are given at page 105 of the Estimates, and this is taken from page 105.


Lucien Cannon: If I understand the matter aright, the minister is willing to give all the details in connection with officials whose names appear on page 105, but there is another item as regards distribution, and the right hon. gentleman would rather give the explanation when that item comes up.


Thomas Vien: What is that item?


George Green Foster: The large item from which we pay the expenditures for this work.


John Ewen Sinclair: I would suggest to the minister that when he comes to deal with the question of films and the distribution of them, if it were possible for him to give uis a moving picture of the 24,000 census enumerators, that would make a very interesting show for the House and the country.


George Green Foster: It would cost a very large sum of money to do that, and I doubt if the object gained would be worth the expense in trying to satisfy my hon. friend's curiosity.


Thomas Vien: It would be a fine collection of Tories, and maybe the last one.


George Green Foster: It would I hope be a collection of very intelligent men and women.


Mr. PEDLOW:: It would be an excellent exhibition of the "No patronage system" as carried on by the Government. I would like to have some information regarding the item: "Chief, foreign tariffs division, $2,610."


George Green Foster: One part of the work of that branch-and that comes again later, although this is the salary for the chief officer-is to keep track of all the tariffs of all countries in the world. We must know in the department at Ottawa, in order to answer questions which are constantly put to us, the tariffs which rule in all the countries in the world with which we do business, and that is practically with all countries of the world. A tariff is passed at a certain time; but according to the different countries, you have modifications of that tariff by regulation, and you have to keep track of all of those. You have frequent legislative changes in the tariff, and you have to keep track of all of those. If my hon. friend wants to know the tariff upon any article in any of the principal countries in the world-and I think I may say in any of them-that information is at his disposal in the department; we are constantly being asked for that information, and we are constantly distributing it. It would be a sorry department if we did not have that part of it up to date.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: That is a very important work to perform, but is all that work performed for the sum of $2,610?


George Green Foster: That is the
salary of the chief, and you will find some others' of the staff along through the list. One man does not quite do all the work. It is a piece of work that one man could not perform by himself.


Georges Parent: I notice that on page
105 there is the position of Director of Commercial Exhibits. This would lead one to believe that we have commercial exhibits, and a director of that service. What are the duties of this officer?


George Green Foster: He is in
charge of two different things. We have an exhibit of commercial articles gathered from a great many countries in the world with which we do business. Our trade commissioners in these different countries get samples of the goods which are largely

in vogue in those countries. These are brought to the attention of our commercial men in Canada. A selection is made by our trade commissioners; they do not send us samples of everything that is used in these different countries, but discriminate and try to send samples of goods Canadian manufacturers might very well supply. We have an exhibit of these things in our Commercial Museum on Bank street. That is one part of the Director's duties. Then our trade commissioners have partial exhibits that they use in their offices. The Director of Exhibits has all this under his charge, their collection, their distribution, and all the information with reference to that.


Georges Parent: Does that include Canadian manufactured products?


George Green Foster: No, articles
manufactured in other countries, but which our Canadian manufacturers might very well be able to supply. If they visit this place on Bank street .they will see exactly the types and forms of these articles in common use in these different countries, which it would be worth while for them to undertake to supply. If my hon. friend has been a reader of the Bulletin he will see that our trade commissioners when sending in their reports, if the article itself cannot be sent, send a diagram of the article. That appears in the Bulletin, and manufacturers can see exactly what is wanted and tell whether it is worth while for them to try and supply that particular article. That has proved very useful indeed, and much of the increase in our foreign trade has been due to that kind of representation, and the representation of the article itself.


John Ewen Sinclair: Do the manufacturers themselves take an interest in these exhibits and co-operate with the department in [DOT]making them a success I notice by the British newspapers, for instances, that the manufacturers have no less than four large exhibitions running in Great Britain at the present time for .the purpose of showing the British people that British manufacturers can beat any others in the world, and that is therefore ho use for the people to buy^ their goods outside. The British manufacturers are willing to compare their goods with those of any other manfacturers in the world. I should like to know the attitude of the Canadian manufacturer in this matter. Does he assist in making these exhibits a success? Does
78i
he co-operate at his own expense to some extent?


George Green Foster: The Canadian manufacturer is doing exactly what the British manufacturer is doing. He is trying by exhibit of his goods, sometimes by car exhibit, sometimes by local exhibitions, and in every other way possible to show to the people of Canada that he can manufacture the goods they need just as good as anybody outside. We do not help him in that; he does the whole of it at his own expense. If my hon. friend has ever had the good fortune to go to the Canadian National Exhibition, as it is called, in the city of Toronto, which is held in the last week of August and the first week of September, he will have seen there a most wonderful exhibit of the products of our manufacturers, to speak of only them for the time being. They have the latest and most up-to-date equipment there, and their own representatives on the spot, able to give out information, distribute literature and so forth. Although that is the largest exhibition, there are others in a smaller way throughout all of Canada. That is the business of the manufacturers; we do not help them in that. What we help them in is in getting them samples of goods that are largely used in other countries, and which we think the Canadian manufacturer might very well make. When they see these samples they can make up their minds whether they will fill the bill in those countries in respect to that particular form of manufacture. To that work we bend our energies, and ask the Canadian manufacturers to take advantage of the exhibits we make for that purpose.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: It might be interesting for the committee to know "that on Thursday last a gentleman by the name of Mr. Halladay, a brother of the hon. member for Bow River, addressed a small gathering in the Railway Committee room. This gentleman had travelled around the world representing a Canadian company, the Canada Cycle and Motor company, and his address was, I think, one of the most interesting and illuminating I have ever listened to. During the course of the year he had travelled over 41,000 miles. He had started out from his headquarters in Canada, crossed the Pacific to Japan, travelled extensively through Japan and China, gone down to the islands of the Pacific, Sumatra and Java, then to Australia and New Zealand, India, South Africa, and back home again. One interesting fact he brought out was that during the war Japan had built

up an enormous foreign credit balance. The result of that was that the merchants of Japan were buying largely outside of their own country. That had an adverse effect on the manufacturers of Japan, so the government of that country stopped foreign credits in an endeavour to compel the citizens of Japan to purchase from their own manufacturers. Their attitude in that respect was very much like the attitude of those in this country who try to prevent the Canadian people from buying merchandise outside their own country, even though they can buy to better advantage. The hon. member for North Sim-coe (Mr. Currie) spoke of some obstacles in the way of Canadian manufacturers obtaining trade outside of this country. In my judgment, you cannot hope to make a success of foreign business in this or any other country unless you buy from the country where you sell. You cannot expect to sell to any great extent unless you buy from that place. That means, in my judgment, that the tariff in this country which prevents importations will also limit exportations to foreign countries. I am sorry there was not a larger number of members present to listen to the very excellent and instructive address of Mr. Halla-day. His remarks were certainly interesting and illuminating. A point he made clear was that all the goods sold by his concern outside of this country were sold at a profit. It is held that goods sold by Canadian manufacturers outside Canada are sold at cost of production or at a loss sometimes to keep factories going. His claim was that the goods sold by his concern in foreign markets were sold at a * profit and that their goods were sold to the consumers in Canada at higher prices than abroad.


Mr. MAHARG:: I want some information on item 4, at page 105, regarding the expert in grain chemistry. Who is this expert at the present time?


George Green Foster: This has reference to the grain laboratory in Winnipeg. Dr. Birchard is director. My hon. friend knows that we have been carrying on through that laboratory certain experiments, for instance, in regard to the conditions of wheat, as respects moisture, and how they affect the keeping of wheat in transport and storage. A very important part of the work of that branch has been the experiments in connection with milling and baking, which have been carried on now for two or three years. And we are publishing each month bulletins which give the results

of the milling and baking te,sts. Experiments are made in regard to different kinds of wheat and how they pan out in these processes. Dr. Birchard is director, and has a staff of three who, with him, carry on that laboratory.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Monsieur le President-


John Archibald Maharg: Does this official report
directly to the department or to the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada?


George Green Foster: He works in
connection with the Board of Grain Commissioners and also report to the department. He is estimated for in the civil government, and is, as my hon. friend will see, an officer in the department, being under its instructions. But there must be in all these matters of experiments, etc., strict collaboration between himself, the Board of Grain Commissioners and the inspector in Winnipeg.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Monsieur le President-


John Archibald Maharg: Does he submit his reports to the Board of Grain Commissioners first, and after they are dealt with by the Board, are those reports passed on to the department?


George Green Foster: My impression is that he reports to the department direct, and sends a copy of the same report to the Board of Grain Commissioners. I know we keep records here.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Monsieur le President-


John Archibald Maharg: There is a considerable doubt in the minds of some people 'as to how that works. We are looking for good things from that laboratory in Winnipeg, but so far as we are concerned, there seems to be little information available, and what there is to be obtained is difficult to get at. Some people are under the impression that he reports to the Board of Grain Commissioners, who censor those reports and then pass them to the department. That is the point upon which we desire to be clear.


George Green Foster: That is not so; we do not get censored reports, but the original documents. I would call the attention of my hon. friend to this fact, which he will realize the moment I mention it. With regard to tests of grain as to moisture conditions* and their influence on either transport or storage, and so far as the quality of grain is concerned for milling or testing purposes, it is im-

possible to set a laboratory to work and expect results within the first year or two. The best results cannot be obtained for several years, because of the differing conditions from year to year. You must get a series of experiments over a wide area and extending over a reasonable period in order to strike the average result. During the first years of experimentation there was very little distribution of information. Now that period has passed and the director has got upon more solid ground. There is a wider basis for deductions and recommendations, and these brochures or bulletins are being now issued regularly with an authority which they could not have in the more experimental stage. If my hon. friend has not experienced any good results from the work that has been carried on, I can assure him that we have numerous and very strong commendation! of what has been done.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Monsieur le President-


John Archibald Maharg: I do not want to be understood as saying that we have received no benefit from this work, for such is not the case. We are, however, of the opinion that we are not receiving the benefits which we should expect. One of the principal things which we anticipated would be the determination of a reasonable spread between different grades of grain, but we have not seen any action in that direction so far. The spread between different grades is as wide this year as ever, if not wider.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend will admit that there is a wide difference between the application of what may be considered as knowledge, absolute or concrete, of the qualities of different grades of grain, and the devising of means by which that knowledge will be put into practice in the actual process of buying, because the process of buying depends upon so many other considerations than the quality of wheat, that the spread is sometimes very large, often much larger than it ought to be. It is very difficult to find out how to apply scientific knowledge to buying in the market towns.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Monsieur le President-


John Archibald Maharg: I should like the minister-


Andrew Ross McMaster: Are you through?


John Archibald Maharg: I desire to finish the point I am discussing.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Monsieur le President-


George Green Foster: Mon honorable ami (M. Maharg) a la parole.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mais qu'il acheve.


John Archibald Maharg: If I understood the minister correctly, he said that this chemist determined the amount of moisture that grain should carry in storage, or words to that effect. Has the present chemist anything to do with determining the amount of moisture that grain should contain in order to enter a certain grade, say, No. 1 Northern grain? Does he determine the amount of moisture it should carry?


George Green Foster: I do not think that element is considered in the grading of grain. Whether it is possible to do so or not I do not know, but practically it has never been done up to the present time. It may be that in time we may add to the tests for the grading of grain, which are now largely mechanical, some scientific principles, which have been ascertained by results in the manner suggested; but up to the present time the mechanical methods, of touch and sight have been those used for determining the different grades.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Archibald Maharg: I quite appreciate the anxiety of hon. gentlemen to get away at this hour of the night, but this is one of the matters that we in the West are largely interested in.


Lucien Cannon: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Maple Creek voted earlier in the evening against the Government giving information, and therefore I cannot see why he should insist upon obtaining information now.


John Archibald Maharg: If I desired to enter into any discussion of the point that my hon. friend has raised I could give him a very apposite reply. The point that we would like to be clear on is-who does determine the amount of moisture that grain shall carry to permit of it entering into the different grades?


George Green Foster: I am not an expert in the business, but in so far as I have seen it carried one, the grading is done by the inspectors or the graders after having taken a sample from the car. The grain is placed on the table of the examiners and they grade it according to its plumpness, or otherwise, and its color. That is done either by the eye or by touch.

As to making a moisture test of each grade I judge that is not done. However, I am not an authority on the subject and I would have to ask my officers for information in respect to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are within a few minutes of midnight. Does not my right hon. friend think we have been discussing these matters long enough?


George Green Foster: It is true that we have been discussing them at some length but we have not made any progress. I cannot conceive of such an intelligent body of men as I see before me spending all this time upon an item and leaving without adopting it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If we pass this item will it satisfy my right hon. friend?


George Green Foster: I am entirely in the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite. Of course the progress of the business depends very largely upon them and if they do not want to hurry matters I am in their hands.


Thomas Vien: In the closing days of last session the right hon. gentleman himself, in almost the last words uttered by him at that time, criticized us because we passed a lot of his Estimates without studying them sufficiently. He made reference particularly to the Estimates of the Department of Justice saying: "You discussed a few legal questions, but when you came to the Estimates themselves you rushed them through, and you did not even discuss a few which to my mind were objectionable or at least questionable." Well, Sir, tonight we have studied to the best of our ability the Estimates which have been submitted to us. The details of the item which is now under consideration cover more than a page, and I think it is only reasonable that we should now adjourn so that we can give to the item the attention which it demands. My hon. friend from Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) is seeking a lot of information from the minister and I shall do my best to assist him in getting it. I support very heartily the suggestion that we adjourn.


George Green Foster: The hon.
gentleman has supported the item for the last hour and a half, and I am sure we will never have any lack of questions so long as he is in the same state of mind that he is to-night.


Thomas Vien: I have a lot of questions to put when the minister's estimates are again taken up.


Andrew Ross McMaster: (Translation.) It
seems to me that if I appeal to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the language in which he is now a master, he will accept my suggestion. It seems to me that we have done a good day's work. The minister himself, during half an hour, endeavoured to arrive at a definition of what is and what is not confidential. He has wasted half an hour of the hon. member's time on this subject. The Deputy-Speaker has settled most difficult questions of order in a very satisfactory way foi himself and perhaps for the House. I do not think it necessary that I insist on the matter. We were interested witnesses of the minister's acrobatic feats, and pyro-technical dialectics, and I think we may request this from him because he is a wise man, a man of experience, a man who attends to the country's business; he must be in favour of the eight-hour day; if he is not, he deserves that all good labourers in this country vote against him at the next elections, and there will be enough electors voting against him in the next election contest to oblige him to give the labourers some encouragement. I am not here to make a speech; it is midnight, time for us to disappear, let us finish.


The Right Hon.   S@: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I have listened with dose attention to my hon. friend's suggestion. He has discussed-yes, he has discussed, and discussed, yet, I do not think he has shown any good reason for an adjournment. There is no necessity, because it is twelve o'clock, that the committee adjourn without having passed a single item. After such a varied and eloquent debate, we should pass a few items and then we could enjoy a good sleep on a peaceful conscience.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the item carry?


Mr. DUFF:: Before the item carries I
would like the Minister of Trade and Commerce to repeat in English his French speech of a few minutes ago. I did not understand one word he said, and I think it is his duty in regard to these items to give the information which he imparted in French to us all.


George Green Foster: It is not necessary that every member on that side of the House should understand French.


William Duff: The Estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce are perhaps one of the most important set of

Estimates that this House has to consider, and it seems to me that at this early hour of the morning-it is one minute past twelve-the minister should not ask us to pass an item of over $390,000 for salaries, especially in view of the fact that so very few Government members are present. It is quite evident that those gentlemen are carrying out the wish they expressed tonight when they voted for no information. There is a great deal of information which we would like to have, and although I might, of course, move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair, which motion would carry because we have more members present on this side than are now in their seats on the Government benches, I do not wish to take that course, and I respectfully ask the minister to report progress.


George Green Foster: I have no desire to press these Estimates unduly, but I think we should pass this item. If any information is required I shall be very glad to give it.


Mr. FOURNIER:: As my right hon.
friend has proved his love for the French language, I would ask him to publish his weekly bulletin in French. That is a most desirable and necessary improvement.


George Green Foster: I will take it
into the most sympathetic consideration.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the item carry?


Lucien Cannon: Before the item carries or the committee adjourns, I would like to tell the minister that the Canada Year Book published by his department is most incomplete in regard to the educational institutions in the province of Quebec. Some of our most important colleges are not even mentioned as educational institutions, although many of them have been active for over a century.


George Green Foster: I am very glad my hon. friend has called attention to those omissions, and when we come to the item provided for the Canada Year Book I shall have the information for him. These educational statistics have only been attempted within the last two or three years, and if any lack of information is noticed it is certainly a kindly act on the part of any member to call attention to it.


Frank S. Cahill: There is an item here for the Dominion Statistician. I asked the right hon. minister yesterday for information about the census enumerators in the county of Pontiac, because previously I had written to the Chief Commissioner and he
told me that the appointments had not been made. I understand that the Government endeavoured to make appointments, but as some Ontario men were appointed I have no doubt the ministers representing the province of Quebec objected. The minister told me that the appointments had been made, but I have not been able to ascertain the names of the commissioners. Would the minister be good enough to give me those names now?


George Green Foster: I have not the names at hand now. When I answered my hon. friend yesterday I told him that the appointments had been made; that is correct.


Frank S. Cahill: That is, permanent
appointments?


George Green Foster: Yes. The chief trouble was in reference to the geographical situation in the county of Pontiac. In the end we divided it into three parts of one division. Temiskaming is the most populous part and as it would be necessary for one of the proposed appointees to travel two or three hundred miles to take up the work there, I have made arrangements whereby a resident of Temiskaming shall act for that part of Pontiac.


Mr. POWER:: Would the item under
consideration include the Dominion Bureau of Statistics?


George Green Foster: That would include the Civil Government employees, but not the work of the statistical department; that is a separate vote.


Lucien Cannon: Does that include the
salaries of the remaining employees of the Board of Commerce?


George Green Foster: No.


Lucien Cannon: Is there a special item
for those salaries?


George Green Foster: Yes.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the item carry?


Frank S. Cahill: No. Mr. Chairman. There are several items here that we would like to have some information on. What is " Chief Transportation Division?"


George Green Foster: The Statistical Department has a very wide field of work, and amongst other things it has to prepare statistics of the different transportation systems, which was formerly looked after by the department of Railways and Canals. The Statistical Branch of that department has now been merged

with the General Statistical Department, and this is the officer who attends to that branch of work.


Georges Parent: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, at page 105 of the Estimates there is an item as to a "lecturer," which can be translated by the word "conferen-cier." Could the hon. minister say whether or not that lecturer gives lectures in both languages and whether or not he is qualified to give them in French and in English?


George Green Foster: In the first
year and part of the second year during which we were commencing and perfecting the preparation of films we put on a series of exhibits of these films and visited about sixteen or eighteen of the principal cities of the Dominion, commencing at Halifax and passing through Westmount. The pictures were explained by a lecturer and they formed, I am sure, a valuable contribution to the information of the people generally as to what we are doing in the department. They were received with apparent satisfaction, the tributes offered in that connection being very numerous.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I find on pace 105 the following item: "1 chief, division of demography, $3,960." What class of work is demography?


George Green Foster: It is really the taking of the census. The word comes from the Greek "demos," the people, and " graphn, " a writing.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is the Dominion Statistician, who is at the same time Census Commissioner, also chief of the division of demography?


George Green Foster: No. The chief of the division of demography works under Mr. Coats.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What is his name?


George Green Foster: E. S. Macphail. He is one of our older civil servants in that department, and a most efficient man.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: As I understand it, the Dominion Statistician collects facts with reference to men and women and things, whereas the chief of the division of demography would collect only facts with reference to human beings. Am I right in that?


George Green Foster: I do not quite see the distinction between men and women and human beings.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The minister misunderstood me. I said men and women and things-inanimate things.


George Green Foster: Oh, I think the Dominion Statistician does more than that. He is director of all the varied activities of the Statistical Department, which are not confined to simply counting men and women and inanimate things and tabulating them. He has under him a very large staff.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Mr. Macphail is actually in charge of the taking of the census?


George Green Foster: Yes.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Then where does Mr. Coats fit in?


George Green Foster: Just as the
director of a large business establishment fits in over numerous branches and divisions of the business controlled by him.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: In the Auditor General's Report Mr. Coats' salary is given as $4,000, while on page 105 of the Estimates it is given as $4,800 for 1920-21, and $5,100 for 1921-22. Will the minister explain the difference?


George Green Foster: Probably it is
due to reclassification.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The same thing applies to the demographist.


George Green Foster: And the same reason would apply.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILL SECOND READING

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 38, to incorporate La Compagnie de Telephone Quebec Union Electrique (The Quebec Union Electric Telephone Company).-Mr. Power.
On motion of Right Hon Mr. Meighen the House adjourned at 12.20 a.m. Wednesday.
Wednesday, March 23, 1921